C
A company is hosting a static website on Amazon S3 and is using Amazon Route 53 for DNS. The website is experiencing increased demand from around the world. The company must decrease latency for users who access the website.
Which solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
A. Replicate the S3 bucket that contains the website to all AWS Regions. Add Route 53 geolocation routing entries.
B. Provision accelerators in AWS Global Accelerator. Associate the supplied IP addresses with the S3 bucket. Edit the Route 53 entries to point to the IP addresses of the accelerators.
C. Add an Amazon CloudFront distribution in front of the S3 bucket. Edit the Route 53 entries to point to the CloudFront distribution.
D. Enable S3 Transfer Acceleration on the bucket. Edit the Route 53 entries to point to the new endpoint.
C. Add an Amazon CloudFront distribution in front of the S3 bucket. Edit the Route 53 entries to point to the CloudFront distribution.
Explanation:
Among the options presented, option C is the most cost-effective solution for decreasing latency for users accessing the website.
Here’s why:
Amazon CloudFront: It’s a Content Delivery Network (CDN) service that securely delivers data, videos, applications, and APIs to customers globally. By placing CloudFront in front of the S3 bucket, the content is cached in edge locations around the world, reducing the latency experienced by users.
Cost-effectiveness: CloudFront is designed to be highly cost-effective, as you pay only for the data transfer and requests. It is typically more cost-effective than replicating the S3 bucket across multiple AWS regions (option A) which can incur additional costs for storage, data transfer, and management.
Reduced Latency: By leveraging CloudFront’s global network of edge locations, users will be served from the nearest edge location, significantly reducing latency.
Route 53 Integration: You can easily integrate CloudFront with Route 53, ensuring that DNS requests are directed to the CloudFront distribution.
Option B (AWS Global Accelerator) is also a valid service for improving global access to resources, but it may be more costly compared to CloudFront. Additionally, it’s typically used for applications hosted on multiple AWS resources (e.g., EC2 instances, ALBs), which might be an over-engineered solution for a static website.
Options A and D involve making multiple copies of the content, which can significantly increase storage costs and complexity, making them less cost-effective compared to CloudFront.
Therefore, option C is the best choice for decreasing latency in a cost-effective manner.