Q94 — AWS SAA-C03 Ch.16

Question 94 of 100 | ← Chapter 16

Q1294. 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?

Correct Answer: A. Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Purchase a Reserved Instance.

Explanation

Let's analyze each option to determine the most cost-effective solution for deploying a managed MySQL database solution for non-production applications on AWS over several years:Option A: Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Purchase a Reserved Instance.Pros:Amazon RDS is a fully managed database service, which means AWS handles tasks like backups, patching, and scaling. This reduces operational overhead.Reserved Instances offer significant cost savings (up to 75%) compared to on-demand pricing when you commit to a 1-year or 3-year term. Since the company plans to run the system for several years, a Reserved Instance is a good fit.Cons:There is an upfront cost associated with purchasing a Reserved Instance, but this is offset by the long-term savings.Cost-Effectiveness: High, especially for long-term use.Option B: Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Use the instance on an on-demand basis.Pros:No upfront commitment is required, and you pay only for the resources you use.Cons:On-demand pricing is significantly higher than Reserved Instance pricing over the long term. For a multi- year deployment, this would be more expensive than Option A. Cost-Effectiveness: Lower than Option A for long-term use. Option C: Create an Amazon Aurora MySQL cluster with writer and reader nodes. Use the cluster on an on-demand basis.Pros:Amazon Aurora is a high-performance, managed database service that is compatible with MySQL. It offers better performance and availability than standard RDS MySQL.Cons:Aurora is generally more expensive than RDS MySQL, especially when using multiple nodes (writer and reader).Using on-demand pricing further increases costs, making this the most expensive option for long-term use. Cost-Effectiveness: Low for this scenario, as the company is looking for a cost-effective solution for non- production applications.Option D: Create an Amazon EC2 instance. Manually install and configure MySQL Server on the instance.Pros:This approach might seem cheaper at first glance because you are not paying for a managed service.Cons:Managing your own MySQL server on EC2 involves significant operational overhead, including tasks like backups, patching, scaling, and monitoring.For non-production applications, the cost savings might not justify the additional effort and potential risks (e.g., data loss due to improper backups).Over several years, the total cost of ownership (including labor) could be higher than using a managed service, especially when considering the potential for human error and the need for expertise in database administration.Cost-Effectiveness: Likely lower than managed services when considering total cost of ownership, especially for non-production environments where simplicity and reliability are also important.Conclusion:For a non-production application that will run for several years on AWS, the most cost-effective solution is Option A: Create an Amazon RDS for MySQL instance. Purchase a Reserved Instance. This option combines the benefits of a fully managed service (reducing operational overhead) with the significant cost savings of Reserved Instances for long-term use.Option B is more expensive over the long term due to on-demand pricing. Option C is the most expensive due to the higher cost of Aurora and on-demand pricing. Option D, while seemingly cheaper, involves significant operational overhead and potential risks that may not be justified for a non-production environment, especially over several years.Thus, the correct answer is A.