This is a tricky question because Amazon has made improvements to Lightsail over the past few years that make it good for static content as well. However, S3 still has the lowest overhead compared to Lightsail.
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is ideal for hosting static websites with minimal operational overhead. It allows you to store and serve static content (like HTML, CSS, and JavaScript files) directly from S3 buckets without needing to manage any servers or complex infrastructure. Additionally, Amazon S3 is highly scalable, cost-effective, and requires very little maintenance.
I found this question to be a bit tricky since Amazon Lightsail is similar in terms of building websites, web applications and deals with static IP addresses. But then I found this: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/WebsiteHosting.html
"You can use Amazon S3 to host a static website. On a static website, individual webpages include static content. They might also contain client-side scripts."
upvoted 3 times
...
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.
Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one.
So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.
Ty13
1 week, 1 day agoShaiTay
4 months agoYomijohnson
4 months, 1 week agoits_tima
5 months, 2 weeks ago