A company provides an online service that stores uploaded videos on Amazon EFS Standard so multiple EC2 Linux instances can access and process them. As the service has grown, storage costs have become too expensive. Which storage solution is MOST cost-effective?

The most cost-effective solution is to use Amazon S3 for storing video content and temporarily move files to an Amazon EBS volume for processing. Amazon S3 is highly scalable, durable, and significantly more cost-effective for long-term storage of large amounts of data compared to EFS Standard. EFS is designed for shared file access across multiple instances, which is useful during active processing but not for archival or infrequent access. EBS provides high-performance block storage suitable for active processing by a single EC2 instance. Incorrect options: AWS Storage Gateway for files or volumes is designed for hybrid cloud storage and connecting on-premises applications to AWS cloud storage, not primarily for cost-optimizing cloud-native storage for this use case. Using Amazon EFS for storing and then transferring to EBS after processing would incur higher EFS costs for initial storage and additional data transfer costs, making it less cost-effective than S3 for primary storage.