A company runs its entire suite of applications on Amazon EC2 instances. The company plans to move the applications to containers and AWS Fargate. Within 6 months, the company plans to retire its…

Question

Options

• ACompute Savings Plans for 1 year with the No Upfront payment option
• BCompute Savings Plans for 1 year with the Partial Upfront payment option
• CEC2 Instance Savings Plans for 1 year with the All Upfront payment option
• DEC2 Reserved Instances for 1 year with the Partial Upfront payment option

• A
  9% (2)
• B
  4% (1)
• C
  70% (16)
• D
  17% (4)

Explanation

Important note: The stated correct answer (C) appears to be incorrect. Based on AWS documentation, B is the correct answer. Here's why:

Why B (Compute Savings Plans, 1-year, Partial Upfront) is correct: Compute Savings Plans cover EC2, Fargate, and Lambda, so the commitment carries over seamlessly when the company retires EC2 and moves fully to Fargate - no unused reservations. Partial Upfront yields a higher discount than No Upfront (A), satisfying the "maximize discounts" requirement.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A - Same flexibility as B (applies to Fargate), but No Upfront provides a smaller discount than Partial Upfront, so it doesn't maximize available savings.
• C - EC2 Instance Savings Plans are scoped to a specific EC2 instance family in a specific region. They do not apply to Fargate. Once EC2 is retired after 6 months, the remaining 6 months of the commitment would be wasted - directly violating the "no unused reservations" requirement.
• D - EC2 Reserved Instances also apply only to EC2, creating the same unused-reservation problem as C once Fargate takes over.

Memory tip: Think "Compute = Flexible, EC2 = Locked." Compute Savings Plans travel with you across compute services (EC2 → Fargate → Lambda). EC2-specific commitments (EC2 Instance Savings Plans, Reserved Instances) anchor you to EC2 - useless once you leave it.

No community discussion yet for this question.