Which architecture should the solutions architect recommend to MINIMIZE cost?

Explanations:

Storing the website files in a single S3 bucket (us-east-2) and using CloudFront is the most cost-effective approach for serving static content globally. CloudFront caches content at edge locations worldwide, providing low latency for users in both the US and Europe. Configuring the price class to limit edge locationsreducesCloudFront costs, directly addressing the “minimize cost” requirement. While this might slightly impact performance due to fewer caching points, it’s a valid trade-off for cost savings with static content.

While using CloudFront with a single S3 origin is generally good for global static content delivery, maximizing edge locations via the price classincreasesCloudFront costs. This contradicts the “minimize cost” requirement. Using all edge locations offers the best performance by ensuring content is cached closest to every user, but it’s the most expensive CloudFront option.

Storing website files in two separate S3 buckets (us-east-2 and eu-west-1) increases complexity and costs (storage, data transfer between regions, management overhead). While using CloudFront with a geolocation routing policy would direct users to the geographically closest S3 bucket, it’s redundant and more expensive than using a single origin with CloudFront. CloudFront’s caching at edge locations already handles efficient global distribution, making separate S3 buckets unnecessary for performance and detrimental for cost.

Similar to option C, storing files in two S3 buckets (us-east-2 and eu-west-1) adds complexity and cost. Using Route 53 latency-based routingin additionto CloudFront is also redundant and adds unnecessary cost. CloudFront already routes to the nearest edge location for cached content, so Route 53 provides no performance benefit in this scenario while increasing cost and complexity.