Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 32 discussion

Good answer is B: client-side JavaScript. the website is static, so it must be S3.

HTML, CSS, client-side JavaScript, and images are all static resources.

I had initially thought Ans A... but its Ans C -- "cookieMr" makes it clear: Ans A "Containerising the website and hosting with AWS Fargate involves additional complexity and costs associated with managing the container environment and scaling resources." So it has to be... Ans B: "...Amazon S3 to host the website, take advantage of its durability, scalability, and low-cost pricing model. Only pay for the storage and data transfer associated with your website, without the need for managing and maintaining web servers or containers. This reduces the operational overhead and infrastructure costs."

Cheapest Static site hosting = S3

Answer-B

HTML, CSS, client-side JavaScript, and images are all static resources.

The MOST cost-effective method for hosting a website is to: Create an Amazon S3 bucket and host the website there. Amazon S3 is a highly scalable and cost-effective object storage service. It is a good option for hosting static websites, such as the website in this scenario. To host a static website on Amazon S3, you would first need to create an S3 bucket. Then, you would need to upload the website files to the bucket. Once the files are uploaded, you can configure the bucket to serve as a website.

Static website should work fine with S3

the website is static because the backend runs on client side.

all static resources.

static website, cost-effective = S3 web hosting

Just all static content HTML, CSS, client-side JavaScript, images. Amazon S3 is good enough.

Option B is the right answer for this.

S3 is amongst the cheapest services offered by AWS.

B is the correct answer.

By using Amazon S3 to host the website, you can take advantage of its durability, scalability, and low-cost pricing model. You only pay for the storage and data transfer associated with your website, without the need for managing and maintaining web servers or containers. This reduces the operational overhead and infrastructure costs. Containerizing the website and hosting it in AWS Fargate (option A) would involve additional complexity and costs associated with managing the container environment and scaling resources. Deploying a web server on an Amazon EC2 instance (option C) would require provisioning and managing the EC2 instance, which may not be cost-effective for a static website. Configuring an Application Load Balancer with an AWS Lambda target (option D) adds unnecessary complexity and may not be the most efficient solution for hosting a static website.

Option B is the MOST cost-effective for hosting the website.