A company migrated a two-tier application to AWS. The data tier is a Multi-AZ Amazon RDS for Oracle deployment with 12 TB of General Purpose SSD Amazon EBS storage. The application stores documents as BLOBs (average 6 MB). Database growth has reduced performance and increased storage costs. The company needs higher performance and a highly available, resilient, cost-effective solution. Which option meets these requirements?

Storing large binary objects (BLOBs) directly in an Amazon RDS database, especially with a 12 TB database and 6 MB average BLOB size, is inefficient for performance and cost. Amazon S3 is an object storage service designed for high availability, durability, and cost-effective storage of large unstructured data like documents. By offloading BLOBs to S3 and storing only metadata (like S3 object keys) in RDS, the database size is significantly reduced, improving performance and lowering storage costs. Reducing the RDS instance size and changing to Magnetic storage would worsen performance and potentially lead to data loss due to lower durability. Increasing instance size and using Provisioned IOPS would increase costs without addressing the fundamental problem of storing large objects in a relational database. Migrating to DynamoDB would be a significant re-architecture, requiring schema changes and application refactoring, which is more complex and time-consuming than offloading BLOBs to S3.