Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional topic 1 question 47 discussion

A - Default Bucket Limit of 100 per account invalidates B

Answer is A B: Limit 100 buckets C: Too expensive D: Limit 100 buckets

A. ASK their customers to use an S3 client instead of an FTP client. Create a single S3 bucket Create an IAM user for each customer Put the IAM Users in a Group that has an IAM policy that permits access to sub-directories within the bucket via use of the 'username' Policy variable.

Cost: "Requester Pays" means the customer pays for their own requests and data transfer, but having a separate bucket for each customer can increase costs. This option might not be the most cost-effective due to multiple buckets and might not be preferred by customers since they have to pay for their own requests. Given the options and the requirements, the best solution is: A

B - looks like a viable option. S3 RRS - costs to a minimum s3 provides scalability and security via (server side encryption or kms)

C and D are obviously wrong. B sounds good for the cost. However, RRS is deprecated and is more expensive than the standard class for quite a while.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/create-bucket-overview.html 100 buckets per account is default limit which can be increased to max 1000. So if we go with B its not scalable beyond limit.

why not b?

A. ASK their customers to use an S3 client instead of an FTP client. Create a single S3 bucket Create an IAM user for each customer Put the IAM Users in a Group that has an IAM policy that permits access to sub-directories within the bucket via use of the 'username' Policy variable.

A is the solution. But in reality, customers won't like to change their tools unless a really good reason.

A. But 250 IAM users is a little too many. I think Identity federation may be a better option.

Here is another two inputs that RRS might not be an ideal option. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/storage-class-intro.html "We recommend that you not use this storage class. The S3 Standard storage class is more cost effective" Also, when you look at the pricing between Standard and RRS then you would observe that RRS is a bit more expensive than Standard.

This question has not mentioned about reduced redundancy storage requirements then perhaps B can't be the best fit.

100 by Default; limit increase up to 1000. "By default, you can create up to 100 buckets in each of your AWS accounts. If you need additional buckets, you can increase your account bucket limit to a maximum of 1,000 buckets by submitting a service limit increase. There is no difference in performance whether you use many buckets or just a few. " https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/BucketRestrictions.html

A is Correct - B is not scalable when no of customers exceed the limit on buckets per account.

Answer B. The default now is 1000 buckets per account

A is correct