A company hosts a website on Amazon EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer (ALB). The site serves static content and traffic is increasing. The company wants to minimize hosting costs. Which solution meets these requirements?

Moving the website to an Amazon S3 bucket and configuring an Amazon CloudFront distribution is the most cost-effective solution for serving static content. S3 provides highly durable and scalable storage at a low cost, while CloudFront, a Content Delivery Network (CDN), caches content at edge locations closer to users, reducing latency and offloading requests from S3. This combination significantly lowers operational costs compared to EC2 instances and ALBs, especially with increasing traffic, as CloudFront handles most requests. Configuring ElastiCache with S3 is incorrect because ElastiCache is a caching service for dynamic data, not suitable for caching static website content directly from S3. Moving to AWS Amplify is a valid option for hosting static sites, but configuring an ALB to resolve to it is redundant and adds unnecessary cost, as Amplify handles content delivery. Configuring EC2 instances to cache the website with Amplify is also incorrect; Amplify already provides global content delivery, and EC2 instances would add complexity and cost without significant benefit for static content.