Q66 — AWS SAA-C03 Ch.16

Question 66 of 100 | ← Chapter 16

Q1266. A company uses AWS to run its workloads. The company uses AWS Organizations to manage its accounts. The company needs to identify which departments are responsible for specific costs.New accounts are constantly created in the Organizations account structure. The Organizations continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) framework already adds the populated department tag to the AWSresources. The company wants to use an AWS Cost Explorer report to identify the service costs by department from all AWS accounts.Which combination of steps will meet these requirements with the MOST operational efficiency?(Select TWO.)

Correct Answer: B. Create a new cost and usage report in Cost Explorer. Group by the department cost allocation tag.Apply a filter to see all linked accounts and services., C. Activate only the department cost allocation tag in the management account.

Explanation

To efficiently identify service costs by department across all AWS accounts using AWS Cost Explorer, the company must ensure that:The department tag (already populated by CI/CD) is activated as a cost allocation tag in the management account.Cost Explorer is configured to group costs by the department tag and include all linked accounts.Correct Answer: C & BExplanation of Each Option:C. Activate only the department cost allocation tag in the management account.Why correct?Only the department tag (already applied by CI/CD) needs to be activated as a cost allocation tag in the management account.The aws:createdBy tag (Option A & E) is unnecessary because the requirement is to track costs by department, not by who created the resource.Activating only the required tag reduces operational overhead. B. Create a new cost and usage report in Cost Explorer. Group by the department cost allocation tag. Apply a filter to see all linked accounts and services.Why correct?Cost Explorer must group costs by the department tag to show spending per department. A filter for all linked accounts ensures the report includes costs from all accounts in AWS Organizations. This provides a single, consolidated view of department-wise costs across all accounts. A. Activate the aws:createdBy cost allocation tag and the department cost allocation tag in the management account.Why incorrect?The aws:createdBy tag is not needed for tracking department costs, adding unnecessary complexity. D. Create a new cost and usage report in Cost Explorer. Group by the department cost allocation tag without any other filters.Why incorrect?Without filtering for all linked accounts, the report will only show costs from the management account, missing other accounts.E. Activate only the aws:createdBy cost allocation tag in the management account.Why incorrect?The aws:createdBy tag does not help track department costs, making this option useless for the requirement.Final Answer:C & BC ensures the department tag is activated for cost tracking. B configures Cost Explorer to show department-wise costs across all accounts. 7.A company is planning to deploy a managed MySQL database solution for its non-production applications. The company plans to run the system for several years on AWS.Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively? A.Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Purchase a Reserved Instance. B.Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Use the instance on an on-demand basis. C. Create an Amazon Aurora MySQL cluster with writer and reader nodes. Use the cluster on an on- demand basis.D.Create an Amazon EC2 instance. Manually install and configure MySQL Server on the instance.Answer:AThe most cost-effective solution for deploying a managed MySQL database for non-production applications running for several years on AWS is:Correct Answer: A. Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Purchase a Reserved Instance.Why Option A is Best:Reserved Instances (RIs) offer significant savings (up to 75% compared to On-Demand) for long-term workloads.Since the company plans to run the database for several years, an RI provides predictable, low-cost pricing.Non-production environments often have steady usage, making RIs ideal. Amazon RDS for MySQL is fully managed, reducing operational overhead:Automated backups, patching, scaling, and high availability (multi-AZ deployments if needed). No need for manual administration (unlike EC2-based MySQL).Cost efficiency for non-production:Non-prod workloads don't need the extreme performance of Aurora (Option C), which is more expensive.On-Demand (Option B) is costlier over several years.EC2-based MySQL (Option D) requires manual maintenance, increasing operational costs.Why Other Options Are Less Cost-Effective:B. Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Use the instance on an on-demand basis.Higher cost for long-term use (no upfront discount).Suitable only for short-term or unpredictable workloads.C. Create an Amazon Aurora MySQL cluster with writer and reader nodes. Use the cluster on an on- demand basis.Aurora is more expensive than RDS MySQL (higher compute and storage costs). Overkill for non-production (Aurora is designed for high-performance, mission-critical workloads).On-Demand pricing further increases costs.D. Create an Amazon EC2 instance. Manually install and configure MySQL Server on the instance. Operational overhead: Manual backups, patching, scaling, and monitoring increase costs. No automated failover: Requires additional setup for high availability.Potential downtime if not managed properly.Not cost-effective when considering labor costs for maintenance. Cost Comparison (Example for 3 Years, db.t3.medium in US-East-1) Option3-Year Cost EstimateA. RDS MySQL + 3-Year RI (No Upfront)~4,800 (Full price)C. Aurora MySQL On-Demand Cluster~2,500+ (Instance + labor costs)ConclusionOption A (RDS MySQL + Reserved Instance) is the most cost-effective for long-running non-production workloads due to:Significant savings with Reserved Instances.Fully managed service (no maintenance overhead).Balanced cost and performance for non-critical applications.Final Answer: A