Most Recent Amazon DVA-C02 Exam Dumps

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (250--300 words):

Amazon SQS uses a visibility timeout to prevent other consumers from processing a message while it is being handled. If a Lambda function does not complete processing before the visibility timeout expires, the message becomes visible again and can be processed a second time.

AWS documentation states that the SQS visibility timeout should be greater than the maximum Lambda execution time. If not, messages may be delivered multiple times, even though processing is still in progress.

Increasing the Lambda timeout or memory does not directly affect message visibility. Increasing batch size can worsen the problem by increasing processing time.

In AWS Lambda, CPU power scales proportionally with the memory configuration. Lambda does not let you directly set ''CPU cores'' as a standalone setting in the general case; instead, increasing the function's configured memory increases the CPU allocation (and other resources such as network throughput) available to the function. Therefore, to reduce latency caused by insufficient CPU, the developer should increase the function's memory setting.

Option B directly addresses the CPU limitation in the supported Lambda configuration model. This is a common performance tuning approach: raise memory, benchmark, and find the optimal cost/performance point.

Option A is not the right lever for most Lambda functions because Lambda compute is configured via memory (and architecture), not by directly raising a ''vCPU quota'' per function in a typical tuning workflow.

Option C increases /tmp storage capacity and helps when dealing with large temporary files, not CPU availability.

Option D increases the maximum runtime allowed per invocation, but it does not give the function more CPU and will not reduce latency caused by CPU starvation.

Therefore, increasing the allocated memory is the correct way to increase CPU for a Lambda function.

AWS AppConfig Feature Flags are designed to release features safely with minimal code changes. The lowest operational overhead approach is to use a single feature flag and configure it to deliver the feature to a percentage of users through built-in targeting rules and variants.

With option C, the developer creates one AppConfig feature flag and defines a variant that represents the new feature behavior (for example, enabled=true or a ''newExperience'' variant). Then the developer creates a rule in AppConfig to target 15% of users. AppConfig feature flags support rules that can evaluate attributes (such as user IDs or other contextual attributes supplied by the application) and apply percentage-based rollout. This avoids building and maintaining custom rollout logic in the application.

Option A and D both require implementing and maintaining custom traffic splitting in code, which increases complexity and operational burden, and risks inconsistent behavior across clients/services.

Option B adds extra configuration overhead and complexity by managing multiple feature flags for ''groups'' instead of using a single flag with a variant and rule. A single flag with variants is the clean, scalable pattern.

Therefore, create one AppConfig feature flag, define a variant, and configure a rule to target 15% of users.

In CodePipeline, the service designed to run builds, execute unit/integration tests, and produce build artifacts (including test reports) is AWS CodeBuild. CodeBuild runs commands specified in a buildspec.yml file and supports reporting outputs such as test results (for example, JUnit XML), code coverage, and other build metadata.

Option A is correct because the developer can configure the CodeBuild project to run the test suite during the build phase and configure the buildspec to publish test report files. This integrates naturally into CodePipeline as a build stage, and the reports are generated consistently on each pipeline execution.

Option B is incorrect: CodeDeploy is for deploying applications (in-place/blue-green) and lifecycle hooks, not for standard build/test report generation.

Option C increases operational overhead by managing an EC2 build server, which is unnecessary when CodeBuild provides managed build environments.

Option D is unrelated: CodeArtifact is a package repository, not a test reporting solution.

Therefore, use CodeBuild and configure test reports via the buildspec.