Which solution will meet these requirements?
Create a virtual server by using Amazon Lightsail. Configure the web server in the Lightsail instance. Upload website content by using an SFTP client.
Create an AWS Auto Scaling group for Amazon EC2 instances. Use an Application Load Balancer. Upload website content by using an SFTP client.
Create a private Amazon S3 bucket. Use an S3 bucket policy to allow access from a CloudFront origin access identity (OAI). Upload website content by using the AWS CLI.
Create a public Amazon S3 bucket. Configure AWS Transfer for SFTP. Configure the S3 bucket for website hosting. Upload website content by using the SFTP client.
Explanations:
Amazon Lightsail provides a simple virtual server but may not be the most cost-effective or resilient solution compared to using Amazon S3. Additionally, it requires management of the server instance, which may not align with the company’s goal of infrequent updates.
Using an Auto Scaling group with EC2 instances and an Application Load Balancer is more complex and costly than necessary for hosting static content. This solution introduces management overhead and higher operational costs without significant benefits for infrequently updated static content.
A private S3 bucket with an OAI allows secure and cost-effective storage of static website content. The S3 bucket can be easily updated using the AWS CLI, and it scales automatically, providing resilience and high availability at a low cost.
While a public S3 bucket allows for easy static website hosting, using AWS Transfer for SFTP adds unnecessary complexity. This solution also opens up the bucket to public access, which may not be ideal from a security perspective compared to using a private bucket with an OAI.