Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 topic 1 question 152 discussion

Option A, C and D are wrong. They all mention using spot instances and EKS based on EC2. A spot instance is not appropriate for a production server and the company is developing new application designed for AWS Fargate, which means we must plan the future cost improvement including AWS Fargate. https://aws.amazon.com/savingsplans/compute-pricing/

B is correct. Compute saving plan will also cover Fargate A: use spot instance is not reliable CD: manually scale up DB

Compute Savings Plans for EKS Base Load: Spot Instances for Peaks: 1-Year All Upfront Reserved Instances for Database Base Load:

B - Fargate cannot support Spot - https://docs.aws.amazon.com/eks/latest/userguide/fargate.html

No brainer, it's D. C doesn't provide any cost-effectiveness!

A wrong : Spot Instances to handle peaks B: correct C & D wrong : Temporarily scale up the DB instance manually during peaks.

D looks more correctable Mainly diff. between B and D is predicable workload-- all upfront no specific for read-replication traffic On-Demand Capacity Reservations ensure availability during peak times without long-term commitments. but no cost-effective

It's between b and d. D is more cost effective because of spot instances. And B is wrong because there is no reason to scale read replicas for RDS (the question doesn't say read only load)

I really don't understand why people are saying that Spot instances aren't suitable for production. There is a two-minute respite before they shut down, and since the application is not said to be stateful, this is plenty of time for a single request/response cycle. With this in mind, the correct solution is D.

A and C: The company will have a mix of EKS on EC2 and EKS Fargate hence reserved instance is not possible as it will cover only EKS on EC2 hence A and C are out Between B and C: C seems to save the most cost, but during peak load spot instances (both EC2 or Fargate) will not provide guaranteed availability. Hence we should go ahead with B. Correct Answer: B

C is the right answer. Everything about B is wrong: Compute savings plan is more expensive than RI, on demand more expensive than spot for peaks and no upfront more exponsive than all upfront.

The scenario ask for the most cost-effective setup. Thus: A = RI doesn't cover Fargate B = ODCR doesn't bring cost benefits, they just ensure you have capacity. Read replicas are for read only, I would expect workload peaks includes writes so this is not saving money nor fully helping with capacity needs C = EC2 Saving Plans do not cover Fargate D = correct (this is the most cost-effective setup, Compute Savings Plans apply to both EC2 and Fargate, Spot Instances applies to both EC2 and Fargate, All Upfront Reserved Instances is most cost effective option for RDS. Manually scaling RDS adds a lot of overhead, but this is not the point of the question)

I might be leaning toward D as it does ask for the. most cost-effective solution

Compute saving plans are more cost effective so B or D are right two options. Between B and D - Spot instances offers better cost and Fargate supports spot instances https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/aws-fargate-spot-now-generally-available/ Option B says, scale RDS Read-Replica for based on events which may not work as workload description does not mentioned that peak load is only read traffic. So D is best and most cost effective solution.

I am leaning towards C, since Instance savings provide the biggest discount. I also couldn't find a way to scale EKS based on dates, which B suggests: "Scale the cluster with On-Demand Capacity Reservations based on event dates for peaks"

its a b

Option A, C and D are wrong. They all mention using spot instances and EKS based on EC2. A spot instance is not appropriate for a production server and the company is developing new application designed for AWS Fargate, which means we must plan the future cost improvement including AWS Fargate.