Exam AWS Certified Developer Associate topic 1 question 227 discussion

I go with C. Even though S3 can be mounted, it might be less cost effective depending on the API operations that the tool you use to mount the bucket will perform. But with C, if you only perform controlled GET and PUT API calls as this questions states then API option will be more cost effective.

I didn't know you could mount a S3. But I read the documentation and there are lots of things that must be set up (Private Link, File Gateway) and I am sure these will cost money. Since the question is about more cost effectively, I choose C

*cost-effective* https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/mounting-amazon-s3-to-an-amazon-ec2-instance-using-a-private-connection-to-s3-file-gateway/

D is the best approach as it will make use of s3 as a storage volume without the need to change the application code to include amazon SDK, but rather a simple change in the volume name in the application code would suffice to write files to S3

C is correct. Yes, S3 can be mounted to an EC2 instance. But you don't need to do that in this scenario. Just use the same S3 bucket and all EC2 instances can access the XML file in S3.

I go with A Amazon Elastic Block Store (EBS) Easy to use, high performance block storage at any scale 30 GB of storage for 12 months with the AWS Free Tier Scale fast for your most demanding, high-performance workloads, including mission-critical applications such as SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft products. Protect against failures with 99.999% availability, including replication within Availablity Zone (AZs), and 99.999% durability with io2 Block Express volumes. Select the storage that best fits your workload. Volumes range from cost-effective dollar-per-GB to high performance with the fastest IOPS and throughput.

C would be more cost effective. Mounting S3 to EC2 instance needs to use AWS Storage Gateway and will incur additional cost.

Ok going with D then, was unsure about local volume but looks like it is ok. https://bluexp.netapp.com/blog/amazon-s3-as-a-file-system

I would go with D. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/mounting-amazon-s3-to-an-amazon-ec2-instance-using-a-private-connection-to-s3-file-gateway/

Although It is possible to mount to S3, but I don't think it is wise to mount as local volume local volumes are subject to the availability of the underlying node and are not suitable for all applications (https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/storage/volumes/) https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/storage/mounting-amazon-s3-to-an-amazon-ec2-instance-using-a-private-connection-to-s3-file-gateway/

You can definitely mount S3. I do it on daily basis. I believe the answer is D.

C You can mount S3 bucket as local volume.

C or D