Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 144 discussion

Option B: Migrating the monthly reporting to an Aurora Replica may be the most cost-effective solution because it involves creating a read-only copy of the database that can be used specifically for running large reports without impacting the performance of the primary database. This solution allows the company to scale the read capacity of the database without incurring additional hardware or I/O costs.

Report = Aurora replica

Ans B - making reports is temporary feature every month, so creating Aurora Replica is sufficient and efficient. Redshift is unnecessary (and means further overheads); C, D permanently upgrade capability which is not needed

This approach focuses directly on mitigating the observed IOPS spikes, which are likely contributing to the performance degradation during heavy report processing, without introducing additional complexities or higher operational costs associated with other options.

Aye B.

Migrate the monthly reporting to an Aurora Replica

Aurora Replicas utilize the same storage as the primary instance so there is no additional storage cost. Replicas can be created and destroyed easily to match reporting needs. The primary Aurora instance size does not need to be changed, avoiding additional cost. Workload is offloaded from the primary instance, improving its performance. No major software/configuration changes needed compared to options like Redshift.

I don't understand why doubling everything (instances, network cost, maintenance effort, and especially storage) can be considered "cost-saving" for a simple monthly report... An instance upgrade can very well be much cheaper. This question is very vague and does not provide enough information.

B is correct because migrating the monthly reporting to an Aurora Replica can offload the reporting workload from the primary Aurora instance, reducing the impact on its performance during large reports. Using an Aurora Replica provides scalability and allows the replica to handle the read-intensive reporting queries, improving the overall performance of the ecommerce application. A is wrong because migrating to Amazon Redshift introduces additional costs and complexity, and it may not be necessary to switch to a separate data warehousing service for this specific issue. C is wrong because simply increasing the instance class of the Aurora database may not be the most cost-effective solution if the performance issue can be resolved by offloading the reporting workload to an Aurora Replica. D is wrong because increasing the Provisioned IOPS alone may not address the issue of spikes in CPUUtilization during large reports, as it primarily focuses on storage performance rather than overall database performance.

By using an Aurora Replica for running large reports, the primary database will be relieved of the additional read load, improving performance for the ecommerce application.

Option B is right answer.

Finally a question where there are no controversies

The most cost-effective solution for addressing high ReadIOPS and CPU utilization when running large reports would be to migrate the monthly reporting to an Aurora Replica. An Aurora Replica is a read-only copy of an Aurora database that is updated in real-time with the primary database. By using an Aurora Replica for running large reports, the primary database will be relieved of the additional read load, improving performance for the ecommerce application. Option B, "Migrate the monthly reporting to an Aurora Replica," is the correct answer.

B is the best option

B is correct

B is correct

ReadIOPS issue inclining towards Read Replica as the most cost effective solution here