Free AWS SOA-C03 Actual Exam Questions - Question 6 Discussion

Option D and A make the most sense; direct ALB health checks fit failover better.

Good point about the alarms being indirect; monitoring the ALB directly makes more sense for failover. So, D for routing and A to monitor ALB health checks should work well here.

D B imo, geoproximity for routing and EC2 checks for faster failover detection.

D/B? Geoproximity routing makes sense for closest Region, and monitoring EC2 instances directly might catch failures faster than just ALB health. That way failover triggers more precisely.

B imo, health checking EC2 instances directly lets you catch instance-level failures before they impact the ALB. D still makes sense for routing based on user location, so those two together seem solid.

D/A? Geoproximity routing in D handles directing users based on location perfectly. For failover, monitoring the ALB directly via health checks is the most reliable, so A fits better than B or C.

D makes sense for directing users to the closest Region based on geoproximity. For failover, A is better than B or C because monitoring the ALB is more reliable than individual EC2 instances or their private IPs, which might not represent overall Region health. Options B and C focus on EC2 instances that can be flaky or temporary. E doesn’t fit since simple routing isn’t meant for proximity-based redirection. Overall, D for routing and A for failover health checks seems like the cleanest match here.

It’s D and A because geoproximity handles routing and health checks on ALBs enable reliable failover.

D makes sense to route users based on proximity, and A is best for failover since Route 53 health checks can monitor the ALB endpoints directly—not CloudWatch alarms or EC2 private IPs.

D imo, plus A since health checks should monitor the ALB, not EC2 instances or CloudWatch alarms.

I’m with the folks saying D for routing—geoproximity routing fits best for directing users by location. For failover, I don’t think you’d want to track individual EC2 instances or CloudWatch alarms since instances can come and go. Instead, setting Route 53 health checks directly on the ALB endpoints makes more sense, but that option’s not listed clearly here. So D plus A might be the intended combo since A mentions monitoring ALB health via CloudWatch alarms for failover. It’s not perfect, but closest match given the options.

Option D is the way to go for routing users based on location. For failover, monitoring the ALB endpoints directly with Route 53 health checks makes more sense than using CloudWatch alarms, so A and B can be ruled out.

Maybe D and B. D makes sense for routing by user location to the nearest region. For failover, monitoring the EC2 instances directly with health checks seems more straightforward than relying on CloudWatch alarms or private IPs, since the instances are the core part of the fleet running the game. Route 53 can link to health checks that monitor instance endpoints, so B fits better than A or C. Simple routing (E) won’t handle geographic proximity properly, so it’s out.

Route 53 can’t directly use CloudWatch alarms for failover, so A is off. D is the way to go for geoproximity routing. Instead, Route 53 health checks should monitor the ALB endpoints directly for failover. So D plus a health check on ALBs would be best.

Not C, since monitoring private IPs isn’t practical for public DNS. D is definitely needed for routing by location. For failover, direct health checks on the ALB endpoints (not CloudWatch alarms) would be more straightforward.

Maybe D and A. D handles routing by location, and A ties failover to ALB health via CloudWatch alarms, which seems more robust than EC2 checks or private IP monitoring.

D for geoproximity, and A because ALB health is more reliable than EC2 checks for failover.

Agree that D is a must for routing users by proximity. But for failover, wouldn’t directly using Route 53 health checks on the public ALB endpoints work better than relying on CloudWatch alarms? Options A or C seem iffy.

D/B? Geoproximity routing (D) is definitely the right choice for routing users based on closest Region. For failover, monitoring instance health directly (B) could work since if the instances are down, the whole Region is likely down. Checking ALB health is good, but sometimes ALB might pass health checks even if instances aren't healthy. Also, Route 53 doesn’t support combining geoproximity with failover in the same record set, so health checks on EC2 are simpler to implement alongside geoproximity routing.

D/A? Geoproximity routing (D) fits the closest-region requirement better than simple routing or other types. For failover, monitoring the ALB health with CloudWatch alarms (A) is smarter than checking individual EC2s or private IPs because the ALB status shows if the whole service is actually available. Using ALB health checks for failover is more reliable and scalable. Combining these should cover both routing by proximity and automatic failover when a Region’s ALB goes down.