The question asks for "a cost-effective solution [ONLY TO] to minimize upload and download latency and maximize performance", not for the actual application. And the 'cost-effective solution to minimize upload and download latency and maximize performance' is S3 Transfer Acceleration. Obviously there is more required to host the app, but that is not asked for.

The question is focused on large downloads and uploads. S3 Transfer Acceleration is what fits. CloudFront is for caching which cannot be used when the data is unique. They aren't as concerned with regular web traffic. Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration can speed up content transfers to and from Amazon S3 by as much as 50-500% for long-distance transfer of larger objects.

Not C, D No requirements to scale the application itself so EC2 is not applicable. B is for caching so not sure how/if that helps the upload speed for global users A is correct as Transfer Accelerator is best for uploading and downloading unique items near the user's region/location

for datas greater tham 1 GB, s3 transfer acceleration is the best

Application users will be able to download and upload UNIQUE data up to gigabytes in size Thus all caching related solution dont work.

Downloading data upto gigabytes in size - Cloudfront is a content delivery service that acts as an edge caching layer for images and other data. Not a service that minimizes upload and download latency.

The question is focused on large downloads and uploads. S3 Transfer Acceleration is what fits. CloudFront is for caching which cannot be used when the data is unique. They aren't as concerned with regular web traffic. C didn't mention S3. Where the data is stored?

It is A. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/transfer-acceleration.html

It is A as the Transfer Acceleration will minimize upload and download latency. If you choose C, where would the files be stored? There is no mention of any S3. Will it be stored inside the EC2? That's why I didn't go for C

Amazon S3 with Transfer Acceleration (option A) is designed for speeding up uploads to Amazon S3, and it's not used for hosting scalable web applications. It doesn't mention using EC2 instances for hosting the application.

My answer is C

C because A is for upload data to S3, not for web app

The correct answer is C!!! It is not A, because - Amazon S3 with Transfer Acceleration (option A) is designed for speeding up uploads to Amazon S3, and it's not used for hosting scalable web applications. It doesn't mention using EC2 instances for hosting the application.

Amazon CloudFront is a global content delivery network (CDN) that delivers web content to users with low latency and high transfer speeds. It does this by caching content at edge locations around the world, which are closer to the users than the origin server. By using Amazon EC2 with Auto Scaling and Amazon CloudFront, the company can create a scalable and high-performance web application that is accessible to users from different geographic regions of the world.

I believe it would be A - my thinking maybe wrong but im just thinking specifically about the S3 put allows upto 5gb not sure about cloudfront. Second way of thinking is that cached content on edge locations but would it not have to go to source still to retrieve if another person wants to download that content in a different part of the world?

C, 1. Cloudfront cache data at edge, which provide better performance for read. Global Accelerator will always goto origin for content. 2. Cloudfront can also help performance for dynamic content, which is good for Web app

I think C is correct the question mentions geographic locations and cloudfront had 500 + edge locations. Gigabytes in size - s3 has a max limit of a 5gb put - even though the question does not say 5gb or less just something to think about and s3 cant hold dynamic content