Which storage solution is MOST cost-effective?

Explanations:

AWS Storage Gateway for files is primarily designed to integrate on-premises environments with AWS, enabling file access via S3. This doesn’t address the high storage costs directly, as it would still rely on S3 storage costs, which can be more expensive than direct S3 use for large datasets.

AWS Storage Gateway for volumes is intended for block storage use cases, which doesn’t fit the requirement for storing and processing large video files efficiently. This option would not be cost-effective for the purpose of video storage and processing.

While using Amazon EFS allows for concurrent access by multiple EC2 instances, it is still generally more expensive than S3 for large-scale storage. Transferring files to Amazon EBS after processing does not resolve the initial high cost of EFS for storing large amounts of video content.

Amazon S3 is a cost-effective storage solution for large video files due to its lower storage costs compared to EFS. Moving files to an EBS volume for processing is efficient since EBS provides high-performance block storage, ensuring that processing tasks can be handled effectively without incurring excessive costs.