When designing AWS workloads to be operational even when there are component failures, what is an AWS best practice?

Question

Options

• APerform quarterly disaster recovery tests.
• BPlace the main component on the us-east-1 Region.
• CDesign for automatic failover to healthy resources.
• DDesign workloads to fit on a single Amazon EC2 instance.

• A
  5% (2)
• B
  2% (1)
• C
  91% (39)
• D
  2% (1)

Explanation

Designing for Operational Resilience on AWS

Designing for automatic failover to healthy resources (Option C) aligns with the AWS Well-Architected Framework's Reliability pillar, which emphasizes building systems that automatically recover from failures without manual intervention - ensuring continuity even when individual components fail.

Why the other options are wrong:

• Option A (quarterly DR tests) is a good practice, but testing for failures is not the same as designing a workload to remain operational during them - it's reactive, not preventive.
• Option B (us-east-1 placement) is a misconception; no single region is inherently more reliable, and concentrating resources in one region actually increases risk by creating a single point of failure.
• Option D (single EC2 instance) is the opposite of best practice - a single instance is a single point of failure, directly contradicting the goal of operational resilience.

Memory Tip: Think of automatic failover like a relay race - if one runner (component) stumbles, the next runner seamlessly takes over. AWS best practices always aim to eliminate single points of failure through automation, not manual processes or geographic assumptions.

No community discussion yet for this question.