A company hosts a containerized application on AWS. The application consists of a backend transaction processing service hosted on Amazon ECS on AWS Fargate that runs continuously, requiring a steady-state baseline of 8 tasks and scaling up to 20 tasks during peak hours. Additionally, the company runs a daily batch processing job on Amazon EC2 instances to generate reports; this job is fault-tolerant and can be interrupted without affecting the system. The database tier uses an Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL instance that runs continuously 24/7. Which two options should a solutions architect recommend to provide the most cost-effective compute architecture? (Select TWO.)
- Purchase a Compute Savings Plan to cover the baseline AWS Fargate tasks.Cevap
- Run the daily batch processing job on Amazon EC2 Spot Instances.Cevap
- CPurchase an EC2 Instance Savings Plan to cover the baseline AWS Fargate tasks.
- DPurchase a Compute Savings Plan to cover the Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL instance.
- EMigrate the continuously running backend transaction processing service to AWS Lambda to leverage pay-per-use billing.
Cevap
Purchasing a Compute Savings Plan to cover the baseline Fargate tasks and running the daily batch processing job on Amazon EC2 Spot Instances provides the most cost-effective compute architecture.
Purchasing a Compute Savings Plan to cover the baseline Fargate tasks is correct because Compute Savings Plans apply directly to AWS Fargate and provide substantial discounts for steady-state usage. Running the daily batch processing job on Amazon EC2 Spot Instances is correct because the job is fault-tolerant and can tolerate interruptions, allowing the company to take advantage of the steep discounts offered by Spot Instances.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Selecting cost-optimized AWS compute models (Savings Plans vs Spot Instances) based on workload stability and fault tolerance.
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s