Q59 — AWS SAA-C03 Ch.15

Question 59 of 100 | ← Chapter 15

Q1159. A company is building an ecommerce application that uses a relational database to store customer data and order history.The company also needs a solution to store 100 GB of product images. The company expects the traffic flow for the application to be predictable.Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

Correct Answer: A. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket.

Explanation

To meet the requirements of an e-commerce application with a relational database for customer data and order history and 100 GB of product images, while being most cost-effective, the best solution is:Key Requirements:Relational database for structured data (customer data, order history).Storage for 100 GB of product images (unstructured data).Predictable traffic flow (implies no need for auto-scaling or high availability unless specified).Cost-effectiveness (avoid over-provisioning).Option Analysis:A. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket. Amazon RDS for MySQL is a managed relational database suitable for customer data and order history. Amazon S3 is a cost-effective, scalable storage solution for product images (100 GB is well-suited for S3 pricing).Most cost-effective option (no unnecessary overhead).B. Use Amazon DynamoDB for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket. DynamoDB is a NoSQL database, not suitable for relational data (customer data, order history typically require SQL).Not the best fit for structured data.C. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon Aurora MySQL database.Amazon Aurora MySQL is a high-performance, managed relational database but is more expensive than RDS MySQL for the same use case.Storing images in Aurora is inefficient (Aurora is for structured data, not blob storage).Not cost-effective for image storage.D. Create three Amazon EC2 instances. Install MongoDB software on the instances to use as the database. Store the product images in an Amazon RDS for MySQL database with a Multi-AZ deployment. Running MongoDB on EC2 is unmanaged, more expensive, and operationally complex than using a managed database like RDS.Storing images in RDS MySQL with Multi-AZ is inefficient and costly (RDS is for structured data, not blob storage; Multi-AZ adds unnecessary redundancy for images).Least cost-effective option.Correct Answer:A. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket.This solution provides:Managed relational database (RDS MySQL) for structured data.Cost-effective, scalable storage (S3) for product images.No unnecessary overhead (DynamoDB, Aurora, or EC2-based solutions are overkill or inefficient).Final Answer:A. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket. The solution that will meet the requirements most cost-effectively is:A. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket.Amazon RDS for MySQL: This is a managed relational database service that simplifies database setup, operation, and scaling, making it suitable for storing customer data and order history. Amazon S3 for Product Images: S3 is a cost-effective storage solution for large amounts of unstructured data, such as images. It provides high durability and availability, making it ideal for storing product images. Cost-Effectiveness: This approach leverages managed services that reduce operational overhead and costs, especially for predictable traffic flows. Storing images in S3 is generally more economical than storing them in a relational database.This combination is efficient and cost-effective for the company's ecommerce application needs.