Which of the below mentioned setup options helps achieve the objective of cost saving as well as DR in the most effective way?
Setup pre-configured servers and create AMIs. Use EIP and Route 53 to quickly switch over to AWS from in premise.
Setup the backup data on S3 and transfer data to S3 regularly using the storage gateway.
Setup a small instance with AutoScaling; in case of DR start diverting all the load to AWS from on premise.
Replicate on premise DB to EC2 at regular intervals and setup a scenario similar to the pilot light.
Explanations:
While pre-configured servers and AMIs can facilitate quick recovery, using Elastic IP and Route 53 for DNS switching incurs additional costs and does not effectively address the need for cost-saving measures.
Using S3 for backup is cost-effective. Regular data transfers via a storage gateway provide a robust DR solution with longer recovery times, aligning with the organization’s budget considerations.
Setting up a small instance with Auto Scaling may not be the most cost-effective solution for DR. It incurs ongoing costs and doesn’t focus on long-term storage or backup strategies.
While replicating the on-premise DB to EC2 supports DR, it can be costly due to the need for continuous replication and instance management, making it less favorable for cost-saving objectives.
I plot that the answer is:
Setup the backup data on S3 and transfer data to S3 regularly using the storage gateway.