A company runs a resource-intensive, customer-facing web application on Amazon ECS using AWS Fargate. The app must be available 24/7 and handle short bursts of high traffic. The workload must be highly available and cost-effective. Which solution meets these requirements most cost-effectively?

The correct solution is to configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate and use AWS Compute Optimizer to rightsize the Fargate tasks. Fargate provides a serverless compute engine for containers, ensuring high availability and eliminating the need to manage servers. AWS Compute Optimizer analyzes historical utilization data to recommend optimal Fargate task configurations (CPU and memory), leading to cost savings by avoiding over-provisioning without sacrificing performance. Incorrect options: "Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate. Conduct load testing using a third-party tool. Rightsize the Fargate tasks in Amazon CloudWatch." While load testing is good, manual rightsizing via CloudWatch is less efficient and accurate than Compute Optimizer. "Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate for steady state and Fargate Spot for burst traffic." Fargate Spot is for fault-tolerant workloads, not burst traffic that requires immediate, guaranteed capacity. Spot instances can be interrupted. "Configure an ECS capacity provider with Fargate Spot for steady state and Fargate for burst traffic." This is incorrect because steady-state customer-facing applications require guaranteed availability, which Fargate Spot does not provide. Burst traffic also needs reliable capacity, making Fargate Spot unsuitable.