AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional — Question 933

A company is refactoring its on-premises order-processing platform in the AWS Cloud. The platform includes a web front end that is hosted on a fleet of VMs.
RabbitMQ to connect the front end to the backend, and a Kubernetes cluster to run a containerized backend system to process the orders. The company does not want to make any major changes to the application.
Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST operational overhead?

Answer options

• A. Create an AMI of the web server VM. Create an Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling group that uses the AMI and an Application Load Balancer. Set up Amazon MQ to replace the on-premises messaging queue. Configure Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) to host the order-processing backend.
• B. Create a custom AWS Lambda runtime to mimic the web server environment. Create an Amazon API Gateway API to replace the front-end web servers. Set up Amazon MQ to replace the on-premises messaging queue. Configure Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) to host the order-processing backend.
• C. Create an AMI of the web server VM. Create an Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling group that uses the AMI and an Application Load Balancer. Set up Amazon MQ to replace the on-premises messaging queue. Install Kuhernetes on a fleet of different EC2 instances to host the order-processing backend.
• D. Create an AMI of the web server VM Create an Amazon EC2 Auto Scaling group that uses the AMI and an Application Load Balancer. Set up an Amazon Simple Queue Service (Amazon SQS) queue to replace the on-premises messaging queue, Configure Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS) to host the order-processing backend.

Correct answer: A

Explanation

Option A is the correct solution because Amazon MQ natively supports RabbitMQ, allowing the message broker to be migrated without code changes, while Amazon EKS provides a managed Kubernetes service that reduces operational overhead compared to self-managing Kubernetes on EC2. Option B introduces unnecessary complexity by requiring a custom Lambda runtime, while Option C increases administrative overhead by manually managing Kubernetes. Option D is incorrect because migrating from RabbitMQ to Amazon SQS would require significant application code rewrites, violating the requirement to avoid major application changes.