Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 88 discussion

this question is too vague imho if the question is looking for a way to incur charges to the European company instead of the US company, then requester pay makes sense. if they are looking to reduce overall data transfer cost, then B makes sense because the data does not leave the AWS network, thus data transfer cost should be lower technically? A. makes sense because the US company saves money, but the European company is paying for the charges so there is no overall saving in cost when you look at the big picture I will go for B because they are not explicitly stating that they want the other company to pay for the charges

"Typically, you configure buckets to be Requester Pays buckets when you want to share data but not incur charges associated with others accessing the data. For example, you might use Requester Pays buckets when making available large datasets, such as zip code directories, reference data, geospatial information, or web crawling data." https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/RequesterPaysBuckets.html

And for answer B/D - Replication/sync would make the survey company pay ongoing transfer and extra storage—more expensive.

Chat AI for the tie)) - would answer C be less expensive for the owner than the current status Current status (no cross-account, just sharing data somehow): If the European firm downloads the data from the U.S. company’s S3 bucket, the bucket owner (U.S. company) pays the data transfer out charges. Option C (cross-account access, but no Requester Pays): Cross-account access only controls permissions. It does not change the billing model. → The U.S. company would still pay the data transfer out charges when the European firm retrieves the objects. So: Cost for the U.S. company = same as current status. Not less expensive.

A is the correct answer

The Requester Pays feature in Amazon S3 allows the company to charge the marketing firm for the data transfer costs when they access the company's S3 bucket. By enabling this feature, the marketing firm will be responsible for the data transfer costs when they access the data, rather than the company. This ensures that the company does not incur high data transfer costs when sharing large datasets with an external party, especially across regions.

• In general, bucket owners pay for all Amazon S3 storage and data transfer costs associated with their bucket • With Requester Pays buckets, the requester instead of the bucket owner pays the cost of the request and the data download from the bucket

The question is clear and answer too. undoubtedly A - one can have "Requester pays" feature on a S3 bucket! My retention isn't great but I remember this from the S3 lesson! https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/RequesterPaysBuckets.html

B is not right because we do not know the usage pattern by the marketing company. copying whole data may cost much more

The survey company wants to share its data transfer costs as low as possible, to replicate the data to the Europe company's account, there will still be some data transfer costs for survey company to pay, so it will be better to request the Europe's market company to pay.

Answer is B, cross region replication.

Option A. When you use S3 Cross-Region Replication (CRR), you will incur data transfer costs. These costs include a fee for transferring data between regions, which is approximately $0.02 per GB.

The Requester Pays feature is the most cost-effective solution for this scenario, as it shifts the data transfer costs to the marketing firm while keeping the data accessible.

B has actually more cost. A is the answer.

If I understand the question correctly, the owner is already paying to maintain the data (size is still growing) in its S3 bucket. The owner wants to ensure that its data transfer costs remain as low as possible (implies that it is best if the transfer cost is $0). For option A, the requestor will have to bear the cost of the data transfer request from the bucket, with the data owner incurring a $0 transfer cost, which is optimal for the data owner. This question does not state that the original data owner must also consider the cost incurred by the requestor and then find an optimal ways to share the data transfer cost for both parties. My 2 cents' worth.

The company wants to ensure that "its" data transfer costs remain as low as possible, so I choose A

Per my understanding, the company is already paying to maintain the data(data keeps growing) in the S3 bucket. The company wants to ensure that its data transfer costs remain as low as possible (implies that it is best if the transfer cost is $0). As per option A, the requestor would bear the cost of the request and the data downloaded from the bucket, causing the data owner to incur a $0 transfer cost, which is optimal for the data owner. The question does not say that the data owner must also consider the cost incurred by the requestor and then find an optimal cost solution.