Which method is the MOST cost-effective for hosting the website?
Containerize the website and host it in AWS Fargate.
Create an Amazon S3 bucket and host the website there.
Deploy a web server on an Amazon EC2 instance to host the website.
Configure an Application Load Balancer with an AWS Lambda target that uses the Express.js framework.
Explanations:
Containerizing the website and hosting it in AWS Fargate can be cost-effective for dynamic applications, but for a static website with HTML, CSS, and client-side JavaScript, this option is overkill. Fargate incurs costs for the container management and orchestration, which is unnecessary for a simple static website.
Creating an Amazon S3 bucket and hosting the website there is the most cost-effective solution. S3 is designed for static website hosting, offering a pay-as-you-go pricing model with low costs for storage and data transfer. It supports HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and images, making it ideal for the project requirements.
Deploying a web server on an Amazon EC2 instance involves managing the server, which includes costs for the instance, storage, and data transfer. This method is more expensive than using S3 for static content, as it requires additional resources and maintenance.
Configuring an Application Load Balancer with an AWS Lambda target is more suited for dynamic applications or APIs. While Lambda can be cost-effective for serverless applications, using it to serve a simple static website would be unnecessarily complex and costly compared to hosting it on S3.
My best guess is:
Create an Amazon S3 bucket and host the website there.
I deduce that the answer is:
Create an Amazon S3 bucket and host the website there.