Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 118 discussion

the cost of S3<EFS<EBS

Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is a highly scalable and cost-effective storage service. It is well-suited for storing large amounts of data, such as the 900 TB of text documents mentioned in the scenario. S3 provides high durability, availability, and performance. Option A (Amazon EBS) is block storage designed for individual EC2 instances and may not scale as seamlessly and cost-effectively as S3 for large amounts of data. Option B (Amazon EFS) is a scalable file storage service, but it may not be the most cost-effective option compared to S3, especially for the anticipated storage size of 900 TB. Option C (Amazon OpenSearch Service) is a search and analytics service and may not be suitable as the primary storage solution for the text documents. In summary, Amazon S3 is the recommended choice as it offers high scalability, cost-effectiveness, and durability for storing the large repository of text documents required by the web application.

Ans D - Amazon S3 is highly scalable, cost-effective storage service, well-suited for large amounts of data. It is highly durable, highly available, and offers good performance. By comparison, EFS (option B) could do it but is more expensive...

S3 can be a good option for storing text documents. It allows users to store any file type as objects. (documents, videos, images)

Using EFS would obviously be the optimal case, we have to use s3 to fulfill the cost efficiency requirement.

Option A : EBS can't be multi-AZ Option B: EFS is expensive Option C: ElasticSearch is not for storing

D is the only real solution here. S3 is the cheapest option for storage and it can scale indefinitely.

MOST cost-effective = S3 (unless explicitly stated in the requirements)

900 in the question to divert our Thinking.When you have keyword least in question S3 will be only thing we should look

EFS and S3 meet the requirements but S3 is a better option because it is cheaper.

MOST cost-effective = S3 (unless explicitly stated in the requirements)

S3 is the cheapest and most scalable.

Now in OpenSearch you can reach at 3 PB so option C is better. With S3 in an intensive scenario the costs of retriving the buckets could be high. Yes OpenSearch is NOT cheap but this has to be analysed carefully. So, I opt "C" to increase the discussion. With UltraWarm, you can retain up to 3 PB of data on a single Amazon OpenSearch Service cluster, while reducing your cost per GB by nearly 90% compared to the warm storage tier. You can also easily query and visualize the data in your Kibana interface (version 7.10 and earlier) or OpenSearch Dashboards. Analyze both your recent (weeks) and historical (months or years) log data without spending hours or days restoring archived logs. https://aws.amazon.com/es/opensearch-service/features/

EFS is a good option but expensive alongside S3 and customer concerned about cost - thus: S3 (D)

I wonder why people choose S3, yet S3 max capacity is 5TB 🤔.

A. It is Not a block storage B. It is Not a file storage C. Opensearch is useful but can only accommodate up to 600TiB and is mainly for search and anaytics. D. S3 is more cost effective than all and can handle all objects like Block, File or Text.

D. Amazon S3 Amazon S3 is an object storage service that can store and retrieve large amounts of data at any time, from anywhere on the web. It is designed for high durability, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, making it a suitable choice for storing a large repository of text documents. With S3, you can store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web, and you can scale your storage up or down as needed, which will help to meet the demand of the web application. Additionally, S3 allows you to choose between different storage classes, such as standard, infrequent access, and archive, which will enable you to optimize costs based on your specific use case.