A company is developing software that uses a PostgreSQL database schema. The company needs to configure multiple development environments and databases for the company's developers. On average, each development environment is used for half of the 8-hour workday.
Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Configuring each development environment with its own Amazon Aurora On-Demand PostgreSQL-Compatible database will be the most cost-effective solution. Since the environments are used for half of the 8-hour workday, the Aurora On-Demand option allows you to pay only for the usage time. This pay-per-use model reduces costs compared to options that require constant availability and billing, such as Amazon RDS instances.
Option C suggests using Amazon Aurora On-Demand PostgreSQL-Compatible databases for each development environment. This option provides the benefits of Amazon Aurora, which is a high-performance and scalable database engine, while allowing you to pay for usage on an on-demand basis. Amazon Aurora On-Demand instances are typically more cost-effective for individual development environments compared to the provisioned capacity options.
Option B suggests using Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL Single-AZ DB instances for each development environment. While Amazon RDS is a reliable and cost-effective option, it may have slightly higher costs compared to Amazon Aurora On-Demand instances.
I'm thinking that it should be B, since question does not mention any requirement only cost effective and this is just an development environment I guess we can leverage the use of RDS free tier also
AWS Services Calculator is showing B cheaper by less than a dollar for the same settings for both. I used "db.r6g.large" for RDS (Single-AZ) and Aurora and put 4 hours/day.
I used the calculator, single AZ is cheaper for the exact same usage duration, if you pick On-Demand option for it too. In Aurora case (option C) you have "On Demand" explicitly specified, so if it has to be specified then I suppose that B option is about a constantly running instance. If B had an "On Demand" added, I'd vote B too.
Guys, when you use the pricing calculator the cost between option B and C is really close. I doubt anyone wants to test on your knowledge of exact pricings in your region. I think that "On Demand" being explicitly specified in option C and not being specified in option B is the main difference here the exam wants to test. In that case I'd assume that option B means a constantly running instance and not "On Demand" which would make the choice pretty obvious. Again, I don't think AWS exam will test you on knowing that a single AZ is cheaper by 0,005 cents than Aurora :D
… just trying to trick you. Aurora on demand is Aurora Serverless.
that is good piece of infroamtion
Aurora allows you to pay for the hours used. 4 hour every day, you only need 1/6 cost of 24 hours per day. You can check the Aurora pricing calculator.
Putting into consideration that the environments will only run 4 hours everyday and the need to save on costs, then Amazon Aurora would be suitable because it supports auto-scaling configuration where the database automatically starts up, shuts down, and scales capacity up or down based on your application's needs. So for the rest of the 4 hours everyday when not in use the database shuts down automatically when there is no activity. Option C would be best, as this is the name of the service from the aws console.
The key factors: RDS Single-AZ instances only run the DB instance when in use, minimizing costs for dev environments not used full-time RDS charges by the hour for DB instance hours used, versus Aurora clusters that have hourly uptime charges PostgreSQL is natively supported by RDS so no compatibility issues S3 Object Select (Option D) does not provide full database functionality Aurora (Options A and C) has higher minimum costs than RDS even when not fully utilized
Aurora is FULLY compatible with PostgreSQL, allowing existing applications and tools to run without requiring modification. https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/features/#:~:text=Aurora%20is%20fully%20compatible%20with,to%20run%20without%20requiring%20modification
We have environments that are used on average 4 hours per workday = 20 hours per week. So with option C (Aurora on-demand aka serverless) we pay for 20 hours per week. With option B (RDS) we pay for 168 hours per week (the answer does not mention anything about automating shutdown etc.). So even if Aurora Serverless is slightly more expensive than RDS, C is cheaper because we pay only 20 (not 168) hours per week.
C is correct because B is cheaper but they don't mention to stop the DB when not in use
1 instance(s) x 0.245 USD hourly x (4 / 24 hours in a day) x 730 hours in a month = 29.8083 USD ---> Amazon RDS PostgreSQL instances cost (monthly) 1 instance(s) x 0.26 USD hourly x (4 / 24 hours in a day) x 730 hours in a month = 31.6333 USD ---> Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL-Compatible DB instances cost (monthly)
is A not the serverless ?
Aurora instances will cost you ~20% more than RDS MySQL Given the running hours the same. Also Aurora is HA.
Amazon RDS Single AZ is cheaper than Aurora Multi-AZ
Aurora on demand is (a little) more expensive than Aurora Aurora is more expensive than RDS single instance So cost effectiveness == RDS. (B)
But if you use the database only 20 hours per week (5 x 4), wouldn't you pay way less with Aurora serverless than with RDS?
On-Demand is cheaper that Aurora or RDS because of low weekly usage
Single AZ more cost effective
Single-AZ DB instances cheaper