AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate
Get started today
Ultimate access to all questions.
Deep dive into the quiz with AI chat providers.
We prepare a focused prompt with your quiz and certificate details so each AI can offer a more tailored, in-depth explanation.
A company provides an online service for posting video content and transcoding it for use by any mobile platform. The application architecture uses Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) Standard to collect and store the videos so that multiple Amazon EC2 Linux instances can access the video content for processing. As the popularity of the service has grown over time, the storage costs have become too expensive.
Which storage solution is MOST cost-effective?
Other
Community
UAnonymous
A
Use AWS Storage Gateway for files to store and process the video content.
B
Use AWS Storage Gateway for volumes to store and process the video content.
C
Use Amazon EFS for storing the video content. Once processing is complete, transfer the files to Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS).
D
Use Amazon S3 for storing the video content. Move the files temporarily over to an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume attached to the server for processing.
Explanation:
Explanation
Correct Answer: D
Why Option D is the most cost-effective solution:
-
Amazon S3 is significantly cheaper than EFS for storage:
- Amazon S3 Standard storage costs are much lower than Amazon EFS Standard storage
- S3 is designed for object storage and is ideal for storing large video files
- EFS is a file system service that's more expensive per GB compared to S3
-
Processing workflow optimization:
- Store videos in S3 (low-cost storage)
- When processing is needed, copy files temporarily to EBS volumes attached to EC2 instances
- After processing, store the transcoded videos back in S3
- This approach minimizes the use of expensive storage (EFS) while leveraging S3's cost-effectiveness
-
Why other options are less optimal:
- Option A & B (Storage Gateway): Storage Gateway is designed for hybrid cloud scenarios, not for native AWS applications. It adds unnecessary complexity and isn't the most cost-effective solution for this use case.
- Option C (EFS to EBS): Still uses EFS for initial storage, which is expensive. While moving to EBS after processing reduces ongoing costs, the initial storage during processing still incurs high EFS costs.
-
Architectural benefits:
- S3 provides durability, scalability, and low cost
- EBS provides high-performance block storage for processing
- The combination allows for cost optimization while maintaining performance during processing
Key AWS Service Characteristics:
- Amazon S3: Object storage, very cost-effective, highly durable, scalable
- Amazon EFS: File system storage, more expensive, shared access across multiple EC2 instances
- Amazon EBS: Block storage, attached to single EC2 instance, good for processing workloads
- AWS Storage Gateway: Hybrid cloud storage service, not optimized for this use case
This solution follows AWS best practices for cost optimization by using the right storage service for each part of the workflow.
Comments
Loading comments...