A gaming company is building an application that uses a database to store user data. The company wants the database to have an active-active configuration that allows data writes to a secondary AWS…

Question

Options

• AElastiCache: Provides in-memory caching, not suitable for persistent, scalable databases.
• BDynamoDB Streams + Lambda: Manages replication manually, increasing latency and
• CAurora Global Database: Provides high availability but does not support active-active
• DDynamoDB Global Tables: Provides active-active configuration and sub-second RPO.

• A
  15% (8)
• B
  11% (6)
• C
  6% (3)
• D
  68% (36)

Explanation

DynamoDB Global Tables is the right choice because it natively supports active-active replication across multiple AWS Regions, meaning writes can be accepted in any Region simultaneously, and it replicates changes with sub-second latency - satisfying both requirements out of the box.

ElastiCache (A) is an in-memory cache, not a persistent database, so it's the wrong tool category entirely. DynamoDB Streams + Lambda (B) can replicate data but introduces custom latency and operational overhead - it's active-passive by nature and won't reliably achieve sub-second RPO. Aurora Global Database (C) is a common trap: it achieves sub-second RPO but is active-passive - the secondary Region is read-only, so writes cannot go there without a failover.

Memory tip: Think "Global Tables = Global Writes." If the question mentions writes to a secondary Region, you need active-active, and only DynamoDB Global Tables provides that natively on AWS. Aurora Global is great for cross-region reads and fast failover, but "active-active writes" is the phrase that locks in DynamoDB.

No community discussion yet for this question.