Question

A media company is designing a new solution for graphic rendering. The application requires up to 400 GB of storage for temporary data that is discarded after the frames are rendered. The application requires approximately 40,000 ramdon IOPS to perform the rendering. What is the MOST cost-effective storage option for this rendering application?

O A storage optimized Amazon EC2 instance with instance store storage

O A storage optimized Amazon EC2 instance with a Provisioned IOPS SSD (io1 or io2) Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume

O A burstable Amazon EC2 instance with a Throughput Optimized HDD (st1) Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume

O A burstable Amazon EC2 instance with Amazon S3 storage over a VPC endpoint.

Answer 1

The most cost-effective storage option for this rendering application is a storage optimized Amazon EC2 instance with a Provisioned IOPS SSD (io1 or io2) Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume.

Step-by-step explanation:

The most cost-effective storage option for this rendering application would be a storage optimized Amazon EC2 instance with a Provisioned IOPS SSD (io1 or io2) Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume. This option provides high-performance storage with the ability to handle the 40,000 random IOPS required for rendering. The Provisioned IOPS SSD volumes offer consistent, low-latency performance.

Using instance store storage or an Amazon S3 storage over a VPC endpoint would not be suitable for this application. Instance store storage is temporary and gets discarded, which would not meet the requirement for up to 400 GB storage. Amazon S3 storage, on the other hand, is object storage optimized for cost-effective data storage, but it does not provide the performance required for rendering.

In summary, a storage optimized Amazon EC2 instance with a Provisioned IOPS SSD (io1 or io2) Amazon EBS volume is the most suitable and cost-effective storage option for this rendering application.