Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Use manual scaling to change the size of the Auto Scaling group.
Use predictive scaling to change the size of the Auto Scaling group.
Use dynamic scaling to change the size of the Auto Scaling group.
Use schedule scaling to change the size of the Auto Scaling group.
Explanations:
Manual scaling requires human intervention to adjust the size of the Auto Scaling group. This is not cost-effective for sudden, unpredictable traffic increases as it does not provide timely responses to traffic changes.
Predictive scaling relies on historical usage patterns to anticipate future traffic, but since the company experiences random traffic increases, this approach may not effectively address sudden spikes in demand.
Dynamic scaling automatically adjusts the size of the Auto Scaling group based on real-time metrics (like CPU utilization, network traffic, etc.), ensuring that application performance is maintained during unexpected traffic increases in a cost-effective manner.
Scheduled scaling involves setting specific times to adjust the size of the Auto Scaling group based on anticipated traffic patterns. However, this method is not effective for random traffic increases that occur unpredictably.
I suspect that the answer is:
Use dynamic scaling to change the size of the Auto Scaling group.
As I recall, the answer is:
Use dynamic scaling to change the size of the Auto Scaling group.