Q83 — AWS SAA-C03 Ch.16

Question 83 of 100 | ← Chapter 16

Q1283. A company hosts a training website on a fleet of Amazon EC2 instances that run web server software. The company anticipates that a new training product will be extremely popular and will receive high user traffic. The training product consists of dozens of training videos that are hosted on the website.A solutions architect must minimize the load on the company's web servers.Which solution will meet this requirement?

Correct Answer: C. Store the videos in an Amazon S3 bucket. Configure an Amazon CloudFront distribution, and set the S3 bucket as the origin. Create an origin access control(OAC) to secure access to the S3 bucket.

Explanation

The correct solution must minimize the load on the company's web servers by offloading video delivery while ensuring scalability, security, and cost-effectiveness. Let's evaluate each option:Correct Answer: C. Store the videos in an Amazon S3 bucket. Configure an Amazon CloudFront distribution, and set the S3 bucket as the origin. Create an origin access control (OAC) to secure access to the S3 bucket.Why Option C is Best:Offloads Video Delivery from Web Servers:Amazon S3 stores videos directly, eliminating the need for web servers to serve large files. Amazon CloudFront (AWS's CDN) caches videos at edge locations worldwide, reducing origin requests (S3) and latency for users.Enhanced Security:Origin Access Control (OAC) restricts direct access to the S3 bucket, ensuring videos are only accessible via CloudFront (preventing public S3 URLs).Scalability & Cost-Effectiveness:S3 scales automatically to handle any number of video requests. CloudFront reduces data transfer costs by caching frequently accessed videos.No server management (unlike EC2 or EFS-based solutions).Why Other Options Fail:A. Store the videos in Amazon ElastiCache (Redis OSS). Update the web servers to serve the videos by using the ElastiCache API.Incorrect Use Case for ElastiCache:Redis is an in-memory cache for small, frequently accessed data (e.g., session tokens, database queries). Not designed for storing large video files (high cost, limited storage, poor performance for blobs). B. Store the videos in an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) volume. Create a user data script to mount the EFS volume to the web servers.Web Servers Still Serve Videos:EFS is a shared filesystem, but videos would still be streamed directly from EC2 instances, increasing load. Higher cost than S3 + CloudFront (EFS charges for storage + throughput).No global caching (unlike CloudFront).D. Store the videos in an Amazon S3 bucket. Create an AWS Storage Gateway Amazon S3 File Gateway to access the S3 bucket. Create a user data script to mount the S3 File Gateway to the web servers.Unnecessary Complexity & Poor Performance:S3 File Gateway is for on-premises applications to access S3 as a filesystem (e.g., NFS/SMB). Mounting S3 as a filesystem on EC2 is inefficient for video streaming (higher latency, no caching). CloudFront + S3 is far superior for global video delivery.Key Comparison:RequirementOption COther OptionsMinimizes web server load(S3 + CloudFront offload delivery) (A: ElastiCache wrong use; B: EFS still uses EC2; D: S3 File Gateway inefficient)Global low-latency delivery(CloudFront CDN) (A: No CDN; B: No CDN; D: No CDN) Secure access to videos(OAC restricts S3 access) (A: ElastiCache not secure for videos; B: EFS exposed;D: No security control)Cost-effective(S3 + CloudFront pay-as-you-go) (A: ElastiCache expensive for videos; B: EFS costly; D:Overkill with Storage Gateway)Conclusion:Option C is the only solution that:Offloads video delivery entirely from web servers (reducing load). Uses CloudFront for global caching (low latency, scalability).Secures videos with OAC (prevents direct S3 access).Avoids unnecessary complexity (no EC2, EFS, or Storage Gateway).Final Answer: C