A company runs a global web application on Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer and stores data in Amazon Aurora. The company needs a disaster recovery solution that can tolerate up to 30 minutes of downtime and potential data loss. The DR solution does not need to handle production load when the primary infrastructure is healthy. What should a solutions architect implement?

The correct option meets the RTO (Recovery Time Objective) of 30 minutes and RPO (Recovery Point Objective) of potential data loss. Deploying infrastructure as required (pilot light or warm standby) with active-passive failover via Route 53 is cost-effective and suitable for these objectives. An Aurora Replica in a second region provides low RPO for the database. Incorrect options: Active-active failover with a scaled-down deployment is more complex and expensive than needed, as the DR solution doesn't need to handle production load when healthy. Replicating the primary infrastructure entirely (active-active) is a hot standby approach, which is more expensive and provides a lower RTO/RPO than required. Restoring from a snapshot would increase RPO beyond "potential data loss" to a specific point in time, potentially older than desired. Using AWS Backup to create infrastructure on demand would likely exceed the 30-minute RTO. Creating a second primary Aurora instance is not the standard replication method for disaster recovery; an Aurora Replica is designed for this.