Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 574 discussion

The key reasons are: Aurora Serverless v2 scales compute capacity automatically based on actual usage, down to zero when not in use. This minimizes costs for intermittent usage. Since it only runs for 2 hours per week, the application is ideal for a serverless architecture like Aurora Serverless. Aurora Serverless v2 charges per second when the database is active, unlike RDS which charges hourly. Aurora Serverless provides higher availability than self-managed MySQL on EC2 or ECS. Using reserved EC2 instances or ECS still incurs charges when not in use versus the fine-grained scaling of serverless. Standard Aurora clusters have a minimum capacity unlike the auto-scaling serverless architecture.

2 hours per week = Serverless = A. Recommended for "infrequent, intermittent, or unpredictable workloads"

A: Aurora Serverless v2 offers the most cost-effective and operationally efficient solution for intermittent workloads like this. B: over-provisioned and too expensive for this workload C: Also expensive. You gotta pay for the instance 24/7, regardless of usage. D: Introduces complexity and operational overhead for database management tasks. Overall, ECS is never easy to handle.

B is wrong because Aurora MySQL cluster will just keep on running for the rest of the week and will be costly. C and D have too much infra bloating so costly

Answer is A. Here are the key distinctions: Amazon Aurora: provides built-in security, continuous backups, serverless compute, up to 15 read replicas, automated multi-Region replication, and integrations with other AWS services. Amazon Aurora Serverless: is an on-demand, auto-scaling configuration for Aurora where the database automatically starts up, shuts down, and scales capacity up or down based on your application's needs. With serverless the db will shut down when not in use.

Option is A

### Aurora Serverless - Automated database instantiation and auto-scaling based on actual usage - Good for infrequent, intermittent or unpredictable workloads - No capacity planning needed - Pay per second, can be more cost-effective

will go with A Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 is suitable for the most demanding, highly variable workloads. For example, your database usage might be heavy for a short period of time, followed by long periods of light activity or no activity at all.

"Amazon Aurora Serverless v2 is suitable for the most demanding, highly variable workloads. For example, your database usage might be heavy for a short period of time, followed by long periods of light activity or no activity at all. " https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless-v2.how-it-works.html

A. Migrate the existing RDS for MySQL database to an Aurora Serverless v2 MySQL database cluster.

B seems to be the correct answer, because if we have a predictable workload Aurora database seems to be most cost effective however if we have unpredictable workload aurora serverless seems to be more cost effective because our database will scale up and down for more informations please read this article https://medium.com/trackit/aurora-or-aurora-serverless-v2-which-is-more-cost-effective-bcd12e172dcf