Which storage solution is MOST cost-effective?
Use AWS Storage Gateway for files to store and process the video content.
Use AWS Storage Gateway for volumes to store and process the video content.
Use Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) for storing the video content. Once processing is complete, transfer the files to Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS).
Use Amazon S3 for storing the video content. Move the files temporarily over to an Amazon ElasticBlock Store (Amazon EBS) volume attached to the server for processing.
Explanations:
AWS Storage Gateway for files is designed for hybrid cloud storage solutions, primarily to integrate on-premises applications with Amazon S3. It is not the most cost-effective solution for storing video content that needs to be accessed by multiple EC2 instances.
AWS Storage Gateway for volumes is intended for block storage use cases and is typically used for backup and disaster recovery. It does not provide the necessary performance and accessibility for multiple instances to process video content efficiently and is more complex than necessary for this scenario.
While Amazon EFS is a managed file storage service that is suitable for multiple EC2 instance access, it can become costly at scale. Transferring files to Amazon EBS after processing is not an optimal solution since EBS is designed for single instance use and may not reduce costs effectively.
Using Amazon S3 for storing video content is the most cost-effective solution due to its lower storage costs compared to EFS. Moving files temporarily to an EBS volume for processing is efficient for the compute tasks while leveraging S3’s low-cost storage for the long-term storage of video content.
I figure that the answer is:
Use Amazon S3 for storing the video content. Move the files temporarily over to an Amazon ElasticBlock Store (Amazon EBS) volume attached to the server for processing.