A company is using an Amazon ECS cluster to run a data-processing application.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

B is correct because the requirement is to allocate shared EC2 infrastructure costs (ECS on EC2, shared cluster) down to the business groups with the least operational effort. With shared compute, the EC2 line-item charges are not naturally per “task,” so you need a cost allocation feature that can split shared costs using workload metadata. Split cost allocation data combined with the AWS Cost and Usage Report (CUR) and resource tags provides the standard AWS mechanism to distribute (“split”) shared resource costs across consumers for chargeback/showback reporting. This avoids operationally heavy changes (like redesigning clusters) and supports automated reporting.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Tagging the Auto Scaling group can only attribute costs at the ASG level, not split costs between multiple business groups sharing the same cluster capacity. It does not solve per-business-group allocation when capacity is shared.

C: Separate clusters per group would work but is higher operational overhead (more clusters to manage, scaling policies, capacity planning, governance), which violates the “least operational overhead” requirement.

D: Cost Categories are useful for mapping and organizing costs, but by themselves they do not solve the underlying need to split shared EC2 costs among multiple consumers unless you already have an accurate split basis. Option B directly targets split allocation of shared costs with tagging and CUR.