SAA-C03 · Question #325
A company is building an ecommerce application that uses a relational database to store customer data and order history. The company also needs a solution to store 100 GB of product images. The…
The correct answer is A. Use Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3. For predictable workloads requiring a relational database, Amazon RDS for MySQL offers a managed, cost-effective solution. Storing product images in Amazon S3 is highly durable and cost-efficient, especially for static assets like images. This combination leverages managed…
Question
A company is building an ecommerce application that uses a relational database to store customer data and order history. The company also needs a solution to store 100 GB of product images. The company expects the traffic flow for the application to be predictable. Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Options
- AUse Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3
- BUse Amazon DynamoDB for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon S3 bucket.
- CUse Amazon RDS for MySQL for the database. Store the product images in an Amazon Aurora
- DCreate three Amazon EC2 instances. Install MongoDB software on the instances to use as the
How the community answered
(42 responses)- A74% (31)
- B2% (1)
- C7% (3)
- D17% (7)
Explanation
For predictable workloads requiring a relational database, Amazon RDS for MySQL offers a managed, cost-effective solution. Storing product images in Amazon S3 is highly durable and cost-efficient, especially for static assets like images. This combination leverages managed services to reduce operational overhead and costs.
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.