Which storage solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

By:
On:
In: SAA-C02
Tagged:
With: 0 Comments
A company is building a web-based application running on Amazon EC2 instances in multiple Availability Zones.The web application will provide access to a repository of text documents totaling about 900 TB in size.The company anticipates that the web application will experience periods of high demand.A solutions architect must ensure that the storage component for the text documents can scale to meet the demand of the application at all times.The company is concerned about the overall cost of the solution.

Which storage solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS)

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS)

Amazon Elasticsearch Service (Amazon ES)

Amazon S3

Explanations:

Amazon EBS is a block storage service that is best suited for single EC2 instances with high-performance requirements. It does not offer native scalability across multiple AZs and would be costly for 900 TB.

Amazon EFS is a scalable file storage solution but is more costly for high data volumes, especially 900 TB, compared to S3. It is ideal for shared file storage, not large-scale web distribution.

Amazon Elasticsearch Service (Amazon ES) is designed for search and analytics use cases rather than storing large volumes of static documents. It would be complex and costly for 900 TB of storage.

Amazon S3 provides scalable, cost-effective object storage suitable for static content, such as documents, and offers high durability and availability across multiple AZs, making it ideal for 900 TB of data.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

ten − one =