A company has a web application with a database tier that consists of an Amazon EC2 instance that runs MySQL. A SysOps administrator needs to minimize potential data loss and the time that is required to recover in the event of a database failure.
What is the MOST operationally efficient solution that meets these requirements?
The most operationally efficient solution to minimize potential data loss and reduce recovery time in the event of a MySQL database failure is to use Amazon RDS for MySQL Multi-AZ DB instance. Multi-AZ deployment provides high availability, automated backups, and failover support, which ensures minimal data loss and quick recovery. By contrast, taking snapshots of the EBS volume or using EC2 instance-based backups involves more manual processes and longer recovery times. Therefore, the best solution is to use Amazon RDS for MySQL Multi-AZ with backups stored in Amazon S3 for comprehensive, automated, and efficient disaster recovery.
To me both B&D minimize potential data loss. However, the question is not specifying availability (Multi-AZ is B) Instead, the question is emphasizing quick recovery from backup (not active/active recovery) Therefore, I think only option D meets both criteria for minimizing potential data loss and quick recovery. - 1 Hour RPO (only D specifies hourly snapshots & hourly RPO) - Snapshots (D) have faster RTO than native backup restore from S3 (B) In the real world, I've used both backups (regularly/scheduled) and snapshots (prior to scheduled changes, etc.)
3rd point: - We are talkng about MySQL hosted on EBS volume on EC2 and native backups to S3 (not Aurora MySQL and AWS Backup)
The key is operationally efficient - While minimizing data loss and recovery time. B - Operationally efficient - Multi - AZ failover - ensures no data loss of committed transactions, automated operation. D - Operationally - the Administrator has to restore the snapshot, use native tools to recover the database which is operationally inefficient. Consistent Backups of data plus database logs is simpler using RDS Hence - A
I meant 'B' sorry
D is incorrect why: While using Amazon DLM for EBS snapshots provides backups, it's not as comprehensive for database use as RDS. In the event of a failure, recovery time would be longer as you would have to manually restore the EBS volume from a snapshot and then attach it to a new EC2 instance.
B satisfy the "minimize potential data loss and the time that is required to recover in the event of a database failure and the MOST operationally efficient solution - doing one time and forget it.
My first questions was: "why has this not already been migrated over to RDS Multi-AZ" I think it most operationally efficient to use a service that could be renamed "MySQL designed for failover events" data loss would be minutes. Data loss on EBS snapshots would be up to 60 mins. Being in this situation I would be quizzing my project manager on why in gods name are we storing this on EC2/EBS and aren't these backups slight overkill.
Def B as to minimize the Data loss, In case of D which is 1 hour Snapshot there would be a data lost during this 1 hour interval, while in B Multi-AZ there won't be any data loss
B "MOST operationally efficient solution" is to use Rds with multi az
Answer is D
nswer is D
C. It says DB failure and not AZ failure. Single AZ works. MySQL native backups that are stored in Amazon S3 ensures data durability and enables efficient restoration
"operationally efficient solution" read replica = operationally efficient
Nvm it's D
Sigh, I meant to say B
MySQL recovery is very dependant on Transaction Logs. I don't think an EBS snapshot is a good backup\recovery solution for this scenario. Point 2, is that Multi-AZ and HA is one way to ensure instant recovery if primary instance fails with is the MOST Operationally Efficient. B it is.
RDS Multi-AZ all the way!
Sold by Gomer's answer