A company hosts a website on Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB). The website serves static content. Website traffic is increasing. The company wants to minimize the website hosting costs.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
For hosting a website that serves static content, Amazon S3 is a highly cost-effective solution as it is designed specifically for storing and serving static files. By moving the website to an S3 bucket, the company can leverage the durability, availability, and scalability of S3 storage. Additionally, configuring an Amazon CloudFront distribution for the S3 bucket will help optimize the performance by caching the content at edge locations worldwide, reducing latency and further lowering costs by decreasing the load on the origin S3 bucket.
Answer A Based on https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/DeveloperGuide/getting-started-secure-static-website-cloudformation-template.html Amazon CloudFront: Uses the durable storage of Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) – This solution creates an Amazon S3 bucket to host your static website’s content. To update your website, just upload your new files to the S3 bucket.
S3 for static contents, and ElastiCache for traffic increasing. No need for cloudfront cuz there is no need for global deliver for the website
" customers often complement S3 with an in-memory cache, such as Amazon ElastiCache for Redis, to reduce the S3 retrieval cost and to improve performance." --https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/turbocharge-amazon-s3-with-amazon-elasticache-for-redis/
A. Move the website to an Amazon S3 bucket. Configure an Amazon CloudFront distribution for the S3 bucket.
static content -> S3