D because all of the components are infinitely scalable dynamoDB, API Gateway, Lambda, and of course s3+cloudfront

The solution that will meet these requirements with the least operational overhead is D: Use an Amazon S3 bucket to host the website's static content, deploy an Amazon CloudFront distribution, set the S3 bucket as the origin, and use Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda functions for the backend APIs. Store the data in Amazon DynamoDB. Using Amazon S3 to host static content and Amazon CloudFront to distribute the content can provide high performance and scale for websites with millions of requests each hour. Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda can be used to build scalable and highly available backend APIs to support the website, and Amazon DynamoDB can be used to store the data. This solution requires minimal operational overhead as it leverages fully managed services that automatically scale to meet demand.

While everyone is voting for D but no where in the question it mentions that website is made of static pages. Other than not mentioning static, option D checks all the boxes.

I struggled between A and D a little bit, then realize that A is not correct because it's hosting website in "different" buckets.

Least operational overhead is only possible with managed services that deliver the required solution. A: Cannot store order data in S3 as there is no processing in S3 B: Overhead of EC2 and RDS and ALB, too many moving parts C: Container management is overhead and RDS too D: S3 for static is best practice. CloudFront helps with scaling. API GW with Lambda is fully managed. DynamoDB for transactions is managed scalable solution.

Answer-D

D is the best asnwer for least operation

D because it is the most logical solution

correct answer

So in this question, how do you know FOR SURE that the website is static because it does not give you any clues. I know the API gateway makes the most sense with "millions of requests each hour", but it's very vague and leaves a grey area if the web site is static or not.

Using Amazon S3 to host static content and Amazon CloudFront to distribute the content can provide high performance and scale for websites with millions of requests each hour. Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda can be used to build scalable and highly available backend APIs to support the website, and Amazon DynamoDB can be used to store the data. This solution requires minimal operational overhead as it leverages fully managed services that automatically scale to meet demand.

static cache in CloudFront can help to handle millions traffic and every 24 hours data can be in store DynamoDB to maintain data for past traffic to get analyzed

Autoscale with least Ops = AWS managed services: Dynamo DB, API Gateway, Lambda, S3, CF.

So services fully managed by AWS usually deliver less operational overhead?

Option D leverages various serverless and managed services, minimizing the operational overhead compared to other options. The auto-scaling capabilities of Lambda, API Gateway, and DynamoDB ensure the system can handle the required peak traffic without requiring manual intervention in scaling infrastructure

Answer A "host the full website in different S3 buckets", remove A. Answer B "Deploy full website on EC2", remove B. Answer C, use Kubernetes is quite overhead, Amazon DynamoDB faster than Amazon RDS for MySQL. Answer D is suitalbe in technical architect design, with Amazon S3, Amazon CloudFront, Amazon API Gateway, AWS Lambda, Amazon DynamoDB. for "LEAD operational overhead" (not mean migration/re-architect overhead, it is operational). Choose D.

Option D is the right answer for this.