Optimizing API Latency with AWS Global Accelerator

SAA-C03 By islever Editorial Last updated

Determine high-performing and/or scalable network architectures.

Short answer

C Set up AWS Global Accelerator to distribute traffic via the AWS global network.

Question

A company hosts its enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in the us-east-1 Region. The system runs on Amazon EC2 instances. Customers use a public API that is hosted on the EC2 instances to exchange information with the ERP system. International customers report slow API response times from their data centers. Which solution will improve response times for the international customers MOST cost-effectively?
  1. Create an AWS Direct Connect connection that has a public virtual interface (VIF) to provide connectivity from each customer's data center to us-east-1. Route customer API requests by using a Direct Connect gateway to the ERP system API.
  2. Set up an Amazon CloudFront distribution in front of the API. Configure the CachingOptimized managed cache policy to provide improved cache efficiency.
  3. Set up AWS Global Accelerator. Configure listeners for the necessary ports. Configure endpoint groups for the appropriate Regions to distribute traffic. Create an endpoint in the group for the API. Correct Answer
  4. Use AWS Site-to-Site VPN to establish dedicated VPN tunnels between Regions and customer networks. Route traffic to the API over the VPN connections.

Key Takeaways

Tests the distinction between CloudFront (content caching) and Global Accelerator (traffic routing), specifically highlighting that dynamic APIs require routing optimization rather than caching.

AWS Global Accelerator leverages the AWS global network to optimize traffic routing for international users, reducing latency compared to standard internet routing.

Common mistake: Candidates often select Amazon CloudFront because it is a common service for performance improvement, but fail to recognize that dynamic, non-cacheable ERP API traffic does not benefit from edge caching.

Expert Analysis

Why the Answer Is Correct

AWS Global Accelerator directs traffic to the optimal endpoint based on health and routing policies using the AWS global network's private backbone. For international customers accessing a single-region US-based API, this reduces latency by avoiding public internet congestion and providing consistent Anycast IP addresses. This solution is cost-effective as it avoids the high capital expenditure of Direct Connect for each customer.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Option A (Direct Connect) is impractical for a public API serving multiple international customers due to the high cost and complexity of provisioning individual connections. Option B (CloudFront) is designed for caching static or semi-static content; since ERP data is dynamic and frequently changing, caching would result in stale data or provide minimal benefit. Option D (Site-to-Site VPN) introduces encryption overhead and does not optimize routing paths across the public internet, offering no significant latency improvement over direct internet access.

Community Comment Notes

Community discussion highlights the critical nature of the API being dynamic. As user TewatiaAmit noted, "CloudFront can reduce response times by caching API responses, but if the API is dynamic... it may not be as effective." Another commenter, GOTJ, emphasized that "exchange information" implies write operations, making caching useless. While some users voted for CloudFront assuming HTTP acceleration, the consensus among experts is that Global Accelerator is the correct architectural choice for dynamic backend connectivity.

Exam Strategy

Always analyze whether the workload involves cacheable content. If the question specifies 'dynamic', 'real-time', or 'write' operations, rule out CloudFront and consider Global Accelerator for latency reduction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why not use CloudFront for dynamic API acceleration?

CloudFront caches content at edges. For dynamic ERP data that changes frequently, caching provides little benefit and risks serving stale data. Global Accelerator optimizes the network path without caching.

Is Global Accelerator more expensive than Direct Connect?

Yes, per-unit costs vary, but Direct Connect requires dedicated physical lines for each customer, which is prohibitively expensive for a public API. Global Accelerator uses shared AWS infrastructure, making it far more cost-effective for this scenario.

More SAA-C03 FAQ →

Community Votes

C
59%
B
41%

59% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Discussion 11 contributions

Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.

From public community threads 11

  1. TewatiaAmit 👍 11 Answered C
    CloudFront can reduce response times by caching API responses, but if the API is dynamic and not cacheable, it may not be as effective. Global Accelerator is better for improving latency when caching is not an option.
  2. 8621a7c 👍 10 Answered B
    CloudFront for Dynamic content (such as API acceleration and dynamic site delivery)
  3. dragossky 👍 3 Answered C
    C. Set up AWS Global Accelerator. Configure listeners for the necessary ports. Configure endpoint groups for the appropriate Regions to distribute traffic. Create an endpoint in the group for the API.
  4. LeonSauveterre 👍 2 Answered C
    A - Direct Connect requires dedicated connections for each customer, making it expensive and impractical for a public API. B - CloudFront improves performance but caching efficiency depends on the API use case. Dynamic & personalized API responses may not benefit significantly from caching. CloudFront is best suited for static content or APIs with predictable responses. C - Global Accelerator provides a global static IP address and uses the AWS global network to route traffic optimally, reducing latency for geographically distant users. Unlike CloudFront, it works well in this case because it doesn't rely on caching contents. D - VPNs are not ideal for public APIs because they require specific setup for each customer, so high operational overhead.
  5. GOTJ 👍 2 Answered C
    I think that the following quote "to exchange information with the ERP system" suggest that the clients use the api not only to get, but to add and/or update ERP data. If this is the case, using a Cloudfront distribution for caching should be useless as the add/update operations must be performed by the ERP system itself. Option "C" approach is different: it's "forcing" users to access API ERP via AWS routing optimised networks by configuring the current API as an endpoint for the globally distributed endpoints groups (no need to duplicate current infrastructure or setup replication)
Show 6 more comments
  1. tch 👍 1 Answered B
    How is AWS Global Accelerator different from Amazon CloudFront? AWS Global Accelerator and Amazon CloudFront are separate services that use the AWS global network and its edge locations around the world. CloudFront improves performance for both cacheable content (such as images and videos) and dynamic content (such as API acceleration and dynamic site delivery). Global Accelerator improves performance for a wide range of applications over TCP or UDP by proxying packets at the edge to applications running in one or more AWS Regions. Global Accelerator is a good fit for non-HTTP use cases, such as gaming (UDP), IoT (MQTT), or Voice over IP, as well as for HTTP use cases that specifically require static IP addresses or deterministic, fast regional failover. Both services integrate with AWS Shield for DDoS protection
  2. Anyio 👍 1 Answered C
    The correct answer is C. Explanation: Option C: Correct. AWS Global Accelerator provides access via the AWS global network, reducing latency and improving performance for globally distributed users. By using Global Accelerator, you can direct global traffic to optimal AWS endpoints, offering lower latency and better connectivity compared to standard internet routing. It achieves this without modifying the API infrastructure, making it a highly cost-effective solution for improving API response times for international users.
  3. FlyingHawk 👍 1 Answered B
    Given that the ERP system is hosted in us-east-1 and the API is likely HTTP/HTTPS-based, Option B (Amazon CloudFront) is the best solution. CloudFront’s global edge network and caching capabilities will significantly improve response times for international customers while reducing the load on the backend EC2 instances.
  4. joanna91 👍 1 Answered C
    C. AWS global accelerator is more suitable for cost-effective solutions to improve API respons time for int'l users by using AWS global network to optimize traffic routing. Whereas, D. AWS Cloudfront is less effective for dynamic, real-time API interactions like this ERP system.
  5. tch 👍 1 Answered B
    MOST cost-effectively - (ERP) system in the us-east-1 Region (one region only) will be B AWS Global Accelerator use case for one or multiple AWS regions!
  6. DhirajBansal 👍 1 Answered B
    Cloudfront used for API acceleration and Dynamic content delivery

Reader comments & corrections

No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Log in to comment, report an error, or add a note about this question.

Submitted for moderation before publishing. Keep it helpful and respectful.

S3 Multi-Region Access Point and Replication Strategy

S-grade

Securing NLB with Security Groups for Minimal Change

S-grade

Most Cost-Effective 7-Year Retention for EBS Snapshots?

S-grade

AWS Forecast vs SageMaker for Time-Series Prediction

S-grade

Practice All SAA-C03 Questions

Access 120 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.

View Full SAA-C03 Practice Test →

← Back to SAA-C03 Study Guide