Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate. Conduct load testing by using a third-party tool. Rightsize the Fargate tasks in Amazon CloudWatch.
Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate for steady state and Fargate Spot for burst traffic.
Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate Spot for steady state and Fargate for burst traffic.
Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate. Use AWS Compute Optimizer to rightsize the Fargate task.
Explanations:
While configuring an ECS capacity provider with Fargate and conducting load testing is a good practice, it does not effectively address the cost-effectiveness requirement for burst traffic. Rightsizing using CloudWatch is beneficial, but it doesn’t guarantee optimal pricing for variable workloads.
This option uses Fargate for steady-state workloads and Fargate Spot for burst traffic, which is a cost-effective strategy. Fargate Spot allows for lower pricing during peak usage, helping to manage costs effectively while ensuring high availability.
Configuring an ECS capacity provider with Fargate Spot for steady-state workloads is not advisable, as Spot instances can be interrupted. This approach risks application availability during steady state, which contradicts the requirement for a highly available application.
Using only Fargate for steady state without incorporating Spot instances misses the opportunity for cost savings during burst traffic periods. While AWS Compute Optimizer is useful for rightsizing, this option does not maximize cost-effectiveness for variable workloads.
In my experience, the answer is:
Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate for steady state and Fargate Spot for burst traffic.
From my point of view, the answer is:
Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate for steady state and Fargate Spot for burst traffic.