Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 245 discussion

D. Reduce the maximum number of EC2 instances in the development environment’s Auto Scaling group This option will configure the development environment in the most cost-effective way as it reduces the number of instances running in the development environment and therefore reduces the cost of running the application. The development environment typically requires less resources than the production environment, and it is unlikely that the development environment will have periods of high traffic that would require a large number of instances. By reducing the maximum number of instances in the development environment's Auto Scaling group, the company can save on costs while still maintaining a functional development environment.

A modifies only the ALB target group (= directs traffic only to one node), but does not affect the number of nodes (and the cost) B balances load between nodes but does not affect the cost C impacts the prod environment so that would be unable to handle its "periods of high traffic" D makes sure that the dev environment will not scale to more than 2 instances, as does the prod environment

you cannot get cheaper than one, and D says to reduce the maximum and does not mention the minimum.

analysis/explanation by copilot > A: you reduce the target group instance, doesnt mean the other one is shut down / terminated (sound tricky but could be true, it didnt mention the other machine is terminated) > D: that make sure only 1 machine is always up in that case then D would make more sense (disregard the high availability concern, A is still more costly then)

A. This is the most cost-effective approach for a development environment. Since development environments typically don't need the same level of high availability or performance as production, reducing the number of target EC2 instances to one minimizes costs. D. Reducing the maximum size of the Auto Scaling group can limit scaling, but it doesn't guarantee cost savings if those instances are running. Reconfiguring the target group to use only one instance is a more direct way to reduce costs in the development environment.

D is not right, if you decrease max number it will not meet the high traffic requirement. Actually it does not matter because the ASG will automatically adjust the running target. A really means set the max, min and desired to one which can save a little bit money, The requirement for two really means the min is 2 in prod. max could be higher than 2.

chatGPT sucks too. it says A, but A abviously just says reduced the number of Target Group, reduce Target Group does not mean the reduce of EC2 instances themself, so there is no cost saved at all. Thus DDDDDDDDDD....

So, in short, the question asks for a way to reduce cost wasted with the dev env, since it's resources are being underused. (A)Target group vs (B) Auto Scaling Group. Reducing the target group won't affect the number of "nodes" (instances), cost will stay the same. To eliminate the excess of ec2 instances in the dev env, you actually need to reduce the auto scaling group.

The application uses an Application Load Balancer (ALB) to direct traffic to at least two Amazon EC2 instances in a single target group You are required to keep at least two instances in each target group. A sets it to one, which would be more cost effective, but doesnt meet the requirement.

In the question it is said minimum it should have 2 instances in Target group. So in development group we can reduce the the target group. In option A. It is said it will have only one instance in development group that doesn't match to our question

B and C don't actually save any cost without impacting performance during high traffic on production. A and D are basically same thing but A enforces a limit of one EC2 instance which is not acceptable as the question asks: "Application Load Balancer (ALB) to direct traffic to at least two Amazon EC2 instances in a single target group. The instances are in an Auto Scaling group for each environment" Hence D is the only valid answer.

The most cost-effective solution is to reconfigure the target group in the development environment to have only one EC2 instance as a target. This will ensure that the development environment only uses the resources that it needs, which will save the company money. The other solutions are not as cost-effective. Changing the ALB balancing algorithm to least outstanding requests will not reduce the number of EC2 instances that are used, and it may actually increase the amount of traffic that is directed to each instance. Reducing the size of the EC2 instances will also not reduce the number of instances that are used, and it may actually make the application slower. Reducing the maximum number of EC2 instances in the development environment's Auto Scaling group will only reduce the number of instances that are used when the traffic is high, and it will not reduce the number of instances that are used on average. Therefore, the most cost-effective solution is to reconfigure the target group in the development environment to have only one EC2 instance as a target.

By reconfiguring the target group in the development environment to have only one EC2 instance as a target, it reduces the number of instances handling the development environment's traffic. This ensures the minimum setup required for the development environment's functionality without incurring unnecessary costs associated with multiple instances. This solution optimizes costs by scaling down the infrastructure specifically in the development environment where lower traffic or fewer resources might be acceptable for testing or development purposes, thus reducing unnecessary expenses related to running multiple instances.

the correct answer is D. This is from Amazon Q : The most cost-effective way to configure the development environment would be to reduce the maximum number of EC2 instances in the development environment's Auto Scaling group (Option D). The most cost-effective way to configure the development environment would be to reduce the maximum number of EC2 instances in the development environment's Auto Scaling group (Option D).The most cost-effective way to configure the development environment would be to reduce the maximum number of EC2 instances in the development environment's Auto Scaling group (Option D).

Option D: Reducing the maximum number of EC2 instances in the development environment's Auto Scaling group could limit scalability but might not directly optimize costs. Min can still be the same number of EC2

Answear is A but I'am not agree. We use only one instance with A and D. But with D, by default, instance is terminated whereas with A, instance still exist. Answear should be D

This option is specific to the development environment and focuses on reducing the number of instances that can be spun up during scaling events. This means cost savings because fewer instances will be used even if the scaling policies are triggered. Given the goal to configure the development environment in the most cost-effective way, without compromising the production environment, the best option is D