Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 63 discussion

Option A. Elastic BeanStalk is expensive, and DocumentDB has a 400KB max to upload files. So Lambda and S3 should be the one.

B. Using DynamoDB for storing and processing large .pdf files would not be cost-effective due to storage and throughput costs associated with DynamoDB. C. Using Elastic Beanstalk with EC2 and EBS storage can work, but it may not be most cost-effective solution. It involves managing the underlying infrastructure and scaling manually. D. Similar to C, using Elastic Beanstalk with EC2 and EFS storage can work, but it may not be most cost-effective solution. EFS is a shared file storage service and may not provide optimal performance for conversion process, especially as demand and file sizes increase. A. leverages Lambda and the scalable and cost-effective storage of S3. With Lambda, you only pay for actual compute time used during the file conversion, and S3 provides durable and scalable storage for both .pdf files and .jpg files. The S3 PUT event triggers Lambda to perform conversion, eliminating need to manage infrastructure and scaling, making it most cost-effective solution for this scenario.

S3 + Lambda provides event-driven, scalable, and serverless file processing. Best choice for large-scale file upload and transformation workflows.

Ans A - a simple get and PUT back to S3 bucket. At "...average 5 MB" the returned .jpeg files should be smaller than standard S3

BeanStack is expensive solution, and dynamoDB have a limitation of 400KB max to upload files. So Lambda an S3 should be the one.

Given the company's requirement for access to both AWS and on-premises file storage with minimum latency and no significant changes to existing file access patterns, the most suitable option is: A. Deploy and configure Amazon FSx for Windows File Server on AWS. Move the on-premises file data to FSx for Windows File Server. Reconfigure the workloads to use FSx for Windows File Server on AWS.

S3 is the only scalable option for such a large user base in cost effective way. BCD can work but will be extremely costly

B. Using DynamoDB for storing and processing large .pdf files would not be cost-effective due to storage and throughput costs associated with DynamoDB. C. Using Elastic Beanstalk with EC2 and EBS storage can work, but it may not be most cost-effective solution. It involves managing the underlying infrastructure and scaling manual

Option A is the most cost-effective solution that meets the requirements. Here is why: Storing the PDFs in Amazon S3 is inexpensive and scalable storage. Using S3 events to trigger Lambda functions to do the file conversion is a serverless approach that scales automatically. No need to manage EC2 instances. Lambda usage is charged only for compute time used, which is cost-efficient for spiky workloads like this. Storing the converted JPGs back in S3 keeps the storage scalable and cost-effective.

Option A is right answer since Dynamo DB has size limitations.

Option A is the right answer.

The solution meets these requirements most cost-effectively is option A.

I think the best solution is A. Ref. https://s3.amazonaws.com/doc/s3-developer-guide/RESTObjectPUT.html

Since this requires a cost-effect solution then you can use Lambda to convert pdf files to jpeg and store them on S3. Lambda is serverless, so only pay when you use it and automatically scales to cope with demand.

if Option A is correct, however storing the data back to the same S3, wont it cause infinite looping, it's not best practice right storing a object that is processed by Lambda function to the same S3 bucket, it has chances to cause infinite Loop and then if the option B cant we increase the limits of Dynamo DB requesting AWS?

Answer A is the most cost effective solution that meets the requirement

Key words: MOST cost-effectively, so S3 + Lambda