Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Deploy the database on Amazon RDS. Use Provisioned IOPS SSD storage to ensure consistent performance for read and write operations.
Deploy the database on Amazon Aurora Serverless to automatically scale the database capacity based on actual usage to accommodate the workload.
Deploy the database on Amazon DynamoDB. Use on-demand capacity mode to automatically scale throughput to accommodate the workload.
Deploy the database on Amazon RDS. Use magnetic storage and use read replicas to accommodate the workload.
Explanations:
While Amazon RDS with Provisioned IOPS SSD storage offers high performance, it can be costly due to the fixed capacity and IOPS provisioned regardless of actual usage. This option does not effectively address the variable workload and cost optimization requirements.
Amazon Aurora Serverless automatically adjusts the database capacity based on actual usage, making it a cost-effective solution for variable workloads. It is well-suited for the expected read-heavy usage with occasional writes and provides managed scaling.
Amazon DynamoDB, while offering on-demand capacity mode, is a NoSQL database and may not be suitable for applications that require complex queries and transactions typical of relational databases. This could lead to higher costs and lower compatibility for the use case described.
Using magnetic storage with Amazon RDS is a cost-effective option but may not provide the required performance for read-heavy workloads. Additionally, relying on read replicas can introduce complexity and may not effectively handle variable usage patterns compared to more scalable options.
I organize that the answer is:
Deploy the database on Amazon Aurora Serverless to automatically scale the database capacity based on actual usage to accommodate the workload.
I compute that the answer is:
Deploy the database on Amazon Aurora Serverless to automatically scale the database capacity based on actual usage to accommodate the workload.