Question

Tricky! For me this could be A, C or D which are technically all serverless and will scale as required. Only B (EBS has to be attached to an EC2 instance) can be ruled out immediately.

There is no mention of EFS's strengths like file locking or sharing between multiple EC2 instances so this could probably be ruled out.

We have the mention of the 30KB size which is within DynamoDB's 400KB item size limitation so it could be a nod towards that but DynamoDB is a database, not primarily for file storage.

Answer 1

The question involves determining the most appropriate AWS service for storing 30KB files in a serverless and scalable manner.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question appears to address the topic of cloud storage and database services, specifically within the context of Amazon Web Services (AWS). The student is trying to identify which AWS service would best fit a scenario for storing 30KB files in a serverless manner that will scale automatically as needed.

The correct answer depends on the use case in question, but the mention of the word 'file' suggests looking for a file storage solution rather than a database service like DynamoDB, despite the file size being within DynamoDB's limits. The student correctly ruled out Elastic Block Storage (EBS) because it is not serverless and must be attached to an EC2 instance.

They also cast doubt on the appropriateness of Elastic File System (EFS), even though EFS does support file locking and sharing, as these were not mentioned as requirements. The student seems to lean towards using DynamoDB because the file size fits within its limitations, even though typically, DynamoDB is used for database storage rather than file storage.