Question #1051
A company is launching a promotional microsite consisting of static HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and image files. They want a hosting solution that minimizes operational overhead and cost. Which option should they choose?
Deploy the site using AWS Elastic Beanstalk with a Docker container.
Host the site using Amazon S3 configured for static website hosting.
Set up an Auto Scaling group of EC2 instances running NGINX.
Use AWS Lambda@Edge to serve content through Amazon CloudFront.
Explanation
The correct answer is B because:
- Amazon S3 is specifically designed for static website hosting. It requires no server provisioning, scaling, or maintenance, minimizing operational overhead.
- Cost Efficiency: S3 charges are based on storage and data transfer, which is cheaper than running EC2 instances (Option C) or Elastic Beanstalk (Option A).
- Simplicity: S3 allows direct upload of static files (HTML, CSS, JS, images) without complex configurations.
Why other options are incorrect:
- A: Elastic Beanstalk with Docker adds unnecessary complexity for static content and incurs higher costs.
- C: EC2 instances require manual scaling, server management, and higher operational costs.
- D: Lambda@Edge is useful for dynamic content manipulation at the edge but is overkill for static sites.
Key Points:
- Use S3 for static websites to reduce costs and operational effort.
- Avoid EC2/Elastic Beanstalk unless dynamic server-side processing is required.
Answer
The correct answer is: B