Which solution will meet these requirements with the LEAST operational overhead?
Host each website by using AWS Amplify with a serverless backend. Conned the repository branches that correspond to each of the desired environments. Start deployments by merging code changes to a desired branch.
Host each website in AWS Elastic Beanstalk with multiple environments. Use the EB CLI to link each repository branch. Integrate AWS CodePipeline to automate deployments from version control code merges.
Host each website in different Amazon S3 buckets for each environment. Configure AWS CodePipeline to pull source code from version control. Add an AWS CodeBuild stage to copy source code to Amazon S3.
Host each website on its own Amazon EC2 instance. Write a custom deployment script to bundle each website’s static assets. Copy the assets to Amazon EC2. Set up a workflow to run the script when code is merged.
Explanations:
AWS Amplify provides a fully managed service for hosting static websites and integrates easily with various version control systems. It allows you to connect different branches for development, staging, and production environments, automatically triggering deployments upon code merges. Additionally, Amplify supports HTTPS out of the box, ensuring secure data exchange without the need for continuous server management, thus offering low operational overhead.
AWS Elastic Beanstalk is primarily used for deploying dynamic applications rather than static websites. While it can manage multiple environments and integrate with CodePipeline, it introduces unnecessary complexity and operational overhead for static site hosting, as it requires managing application servers. This does not align with the requirement for a serverless solution.
Hosting static websites in Amazon S3 is a viable option, but it requires additional configuration and steps, such as setting up AWS CodePipeline and CodeBuild to automate the deployment process. This adds complexity compared to the simplicity of using AWS Amplify. Although it can work for static hosting, it does not minimize operational overhead as effectively as AWS Amplify.
Hosting websites on Amazon EC2 instances introduces significant operational overhead since it requires managing servers, writing custom deployment scripts, and ensuring the instances are properly configured and secured. This solution goes against the requirement for minimal operational overhead and continuous server management, making it less suitable for static website hosting compared to AWS Amplify.
I believe the answer is:
Host each website by using AWS Amplify with a serverless backend. Conned the repository branches that correspond to each of the desired environments. Start deployments by merging code changes to a desired branch.