What should a solutions architect recommend to meet these requirements?
Migrate the website content to Amazon S3 and host the website on Amazon CloudFront.
Migrate the website content to Amazon EC2 instances with public Elastic IP addresses in multiple AWS Regions.
Migrate the website content to Amazon EC2 instances and vertically scale as the load increases.
Use Amazon Route 53 to distribute the loads across multiple Amazon CloudFront distributions for each AWS Region that exists globally.
Explanations:
Hosting the website content on Amazon S3 provides a highly durable and available storage solution, and using Amazon CloudFront as a content delivery network (CDN) enables low-latency access to the website globally. This setup can handle increased traffic effectively and scales automatically with demand.
Migrating the website to Amazon EC2 instances with public Elastic IP addresses does not provide inherent scalability or availability benefits compared to S3 and CloudFront. This approach also requires more management overhead and does not leverage a CDN for global distribution.
Vertically scaling EC2 instances is not an optimal solution for handling increased traffic as it can lead to single points of failure and still does not provide a global presence. It also does not offer cost efficiency and elasticity compared to a serverless or distributed architecture like S3 and CloudFront.
While Route 53 is a powerful DNS service that can help distribute traffic, it does not address the core issue of hosting and scaling the website. Simply using multiple CloudFront distributions without a proper backend infrastructure (like S3) would not effectively resolve the issues of scalability and availability.
I compute that the answer is:
Migrate the website content to Amazon S3 and host the website on Amazon CloudFront.
I plot that the answer is:
Migrate the website content to Amazon S3 and host the website on Amazon CloudFront.