Which solution will meet these requirements?

Explanations:

This option uses Amazon S3 for static content hosting, which is cost-effective and ideal for static websites. It utilizes Amazon ECS with AWS Fargate, allowing for serverless compute power without managing servers, thereby reducing operational overhead. Additionally, using a managed Amazon RDS cluster ensures scalability and maintenance for the relational database.

While it correctly uses ECS for compute power, it suggests Amazon CloudFront for static content hosting, which is a CDN rather than a hosting solution. This may incur additional costs and is less straightforward than using S3 for static hosting. Moreover, using EC2 instead of Fargate means managing servers, which contradicts the requirement to reduce operational costs.

This option suggests using Amazon EKS with Fargate, which is more complex than ECS for running containerized applications. Although S3 is appropriate for static content, the added complexity of Kubernetes (EKS) may lead to higher operational costs and management overhead. Using a managed RDS is good, but the overall solution isn’t the simplest.

Using EC2 Reserved Instances for hosting static content is inefficient and potentially more costly compared to S3. EKS with EC2 also requires more management effort and does not align with the goal of simplifying deployment. Although it includes a managed RDS cluster, the other components do not meet the cost-reduction and operational simplicity objectives.