amazon-s3 - 哪种AWS S3检索模型将具有成本效益？(Which AWS S3 retrieval model would be cost-effecient?)

Question

I am looking at this question and have a different opinion:

(我在看这个问题，并有不同的看法：)

A company is to run a service on AWS to provide offsite backups for images on laptops and phones.

(一家公司将在AWS上运行一项服务，以为笔记本电脑和手机上的图像提供异地备份。)

The solution must support millions of customers with thousands of images per customer.

(该解决方案必须以每位客户数千张图片的方式支持数百万客户。)

Though the images will be retrieved infrequently, they must be available for retrieval immediately.

(尽管很少会检索图像，但是它们必须立即可用。)

Which is the most cost-efficient storage option that meets these requirements?

(哪个是满足这些要求的最具成本效益的存储选项？)

Options:
A.  Amazon Glacier with Expedited retrievals
B.  Amazon S3 Standard Infrequent Access
C.  Amazon EFS
D.  Amazon S3 Standard 

Correct Answer:

(正确答案：)

B. Amazon S3 Standard Infrequent Access

The question is asking the most cost-efficient storage option, which should be Glacier.Option A indicates not only Glacier but also states the option of Expedited retrievals which will deliver the data in 1-5 minutes

(问题是要问最经济高效的存储选项，应该是Glacier.Option A不仅表示Glacier，还说明了快速检索的选项，该选项将在1-5分钟内交付数据)

S3 retrieval pricing (not including Glacier Expedited): https://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/

(S3检索价格（不包括Glacier Expeded）： https : //aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/)

Glacier Expedited retrievals pricing: https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing/

(Glacier加急检索价格： https ： //aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing/)

Though the actual cost could be heavily determined by the data volume, however in general, I believe the expense saved by Glacier would compensate the extra cost from Expedited retrieval service.

(尽管实际成本可以由数据量决定，但是总的来说，我相信Glacier节省的费用将弥补Expedited检索服务的额外费用。)

  ask by mdivk translate from so

Answer 1

AWS Glacier is incorrect as you can't directly put objects to the Glacier, to do so you first need to upload to S3, then with life cycle policy move to Glacier.

(AWS Glacier是不正确的，因为您不能直接将对象放入Glacier，为此，您首先需要上传到S3，然后将生命周期策略移到Glacier。)

So it will definitely increase the cost.

(因此，这肯定会增加成本。)

EFS is wrong, as it has a very slow read/ write.

(EFS是错误的，因为它的读/写速度非常慢。)

S3 standard has somehow equivalent pricing and speed but Infrequent access is the best option in this case.

(S3标准在某种程度上具有相同的价格和速度，但是在这种情况下，不频繁访问是最佳选择。)

In real scenario it will be a good idea to place Cloudfront in front of S3 bucket as files are static and you can save cost on read operations by caching the.

(在实际情况下，将Cloudfront放在S3存储桶的前面是个好主意，因为文件是静态的，并且可以通过缓存来节省读取操作的成本。)