A survey company has gathered data for several years from areas in the United States. The company hosts the data in an Amazon S3 bucket that is 3 TB in size and growing. The company has started to share the data with a European marketing firm that has S3 buckets. The company wants to ensure that its data transfer costs remain as low as possible.
Which solution will meet these requirements?
The company wants to ensure that its data transfer costs remain as low as possible. By enabling the Requester Pays feature, the data transfer costs for accessing the data will be borne by the European marketing firm rather than the survey company. This effectively reduces the survey company's data transfer costs to zero because they are transferring the expense to the data requester.
this question is too vague imho if the question is looking for a way to incur charges to the European company instead of the US company, then requester pay makes sense. if they are looking to reduce overall data transfer cost, then B makes sense because the data does not leave the AWS network, thus data transfer cost should be lower technically? A. makes sense because the US company saves money, but the European company is paying for the charges so there is no overall saving in cost when you look at the big picture I will go for B because they are not explicitly stating that they want the other company to pay for the charges
I disagree. The question says, "the company wants to ensure that ITS data transfer costs remain as low as possible" -- 'it' being the US company. The question would have stayed "ensure that data transfer costs" (without the word 'its') if they meant the overall data transfer cost.
I concur with your explanation 100%
I don't agree with your explanation, you are overthinking it in wrong direction.
What if company decides to share data with 10 new companies ? Why would a company pay for data transfer when there is a requestor pay feature available.
Agree, B) Cross Region Replication: $0.02/GB A) over the internet it is $0.09/GB Answer is B
I agree, also the question says that the target firm "has S3 buckets." so I think that is a clue to say they can accept replication data on any of those buckets.
is S3 Cross-Region Replication works between 2 separate aws accounts? shouldn't the answer is C?
"C" can't be the answer as it means the S3 data access survey company will incur the cost when data is accessed by European company.
"Typically, you configure buckets to be Requester Pays buckets when you want to share data but not incur charges associated with others accessing the data. For example, you might use Requester Pays buckets when making available large datasets, such as zip code directories, reference data, geospatial information, or web crawling data." https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/RequesterPaysBuckets.html
The most suitable solution for minimizing data transfer costs while sharing data with the European marketing firm is: B. Configure S3 Cross-Region Replication from the company's S3 bucket to one of the marketing firm's S3 buckets.
This option allows the data to be replicated to the European marketing firm's S3 bucket, minimizing data transfer costs. Cross-Region Replication enables the efficient transfer of data between regions, and since the marketing firm has its own S3 bucket, they can access the replicated data without incurring additional costs. This approach provides a cost-effective way to share the data while maintaining low transfer costs.
Answer: A
S3 Cross-Region Replication: This feature automatically replicates objects from the source bucket (owned by the survey company) to a destination bucket (owned by the marketing firm) in a different AWS region. By replicating the data to the marketing firm's region, data transfer costs can be minimized, as data transfers within the same AWS region are typically cheaper than those across regions. Cost Efficiency: Since the marketing firm is located in Europe, having the data replicated to an S3 bucket in a European AWS region reduces the data transfer costs associated with transferring data across regions.
B is correct The data in US S3 is '3T and growing' and better to use Cross-Region-Replica. A as my understanding is mainly useful for consumer takes care of their cost to use S3 data
As per Amazon Q: Cross Region Replication would be more expensive than cross account access across different regions in S3. While data transfer between S3 buckets within the same region is free, transferring objects between regions would incur data transfer charges. Cross Region Replication also requires that the objects be replicated to the other regions periodically based on configured rules. On the other hand, accessing objects across accounts within the same region does not involve any data transfer charges. The objects do not need to be replicated. Applications can access objects in another account's S3 bucket within the same region at no additional cost other than standard S3 storage and request charges.
Some key factors to consider are data transfer costs, replication overhead, and latency requirements for accessing objects in other regions. The AWS documentation provides up-to-date pricing details for different data transfer scenarios that can help evaluate the total cost. https://repost.aws/questions/QU1TLOxt1TSRyCqqCuP1FuIA/s3-cross-account-cross-region-replication https://repost.aws/questions/QUORpWYUPSS6e9e6AVLVyGNQ/cost-of-moving-objects-between-buckets-in-s3-from-multiple-account-under-same-region
GPT 4o also confirmed that if the maketing firm is within same company, C is the optimal answer. But how come A would be the answer if they are under same company :V
B is the correct answer, * Cut Down On Cross-Regional Data Transfer If you frequently transfer data between S3 buckets in different regions, you can use the cross-region replication feature to mirror your S3 bucket in a different region. This will improve performance and save you money on data transfer and Amazon S3 storage costs. For example, if you are transferring 20 GB from a bucket in US-west-2 to an EC2 instance in US-east-1, you would be charged $0.20. However, if you first downloaded the data to a mirror S3 bucket in US-east-1, you would only pay $0.02 for transfer and $0.03 for storage over the course of a month, which would be significantly less expensive.
Definitely B
both are part of same company. Option A still incur changes for the company. Option B will help to save some cost sharing the data in both the regions.
100% answer is A. Question doesnt state anything about the other company saving costs, only the US company.
(A) IS INCORRECT: The European marketing firm works for the survey company. The survey company pays the marketing firm to sell its data in Europe. (A) would incur a cost on the marketing firm that would be passed onto the survey company. (B) is correct: CRR reduces cost.
In this setup, anyone who requests data from the S3 bucket must cover the cost of the data transfer and request charges. This approach is ideal for S3 bucket owners who share large datasets with other users or organizations and want to avoid bearing the cost of data transfer. This would be the most direct way to ensure that the survey company's data transfer costs remain minimal while sharing data with the European marketing firm. The marketing firm, as the requester, will pay for the data they access or transfer.
why not option d
I tend to go for A, but it says the company is "sharing" data, so it sounds like a collaboration, not a sale, so B makes sense too. Again, another vague question
If the the Requester Pays feature is a vauable option and can be configured on S3 bucket level , why not using it. Finally vote for A.