Comprehensive and Detailed 250 to 300 words of Explanation (AWS documentation-based, no links):
To achieve resilience across multiple Availability Zones, the architecture should use services that natively provide Multi-AZ durability and failover with minimal manual intervention. For static website content, Amazon S3 is the natural choice because it stores objects durably and is designed for high availability; it also integrates well with common web delivery patterns. For the database, the requirement is explicitly Microsoft SQL Server and resilience across AZs.
An Amazon RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ deployment (Option B) is designed to provide high availability by maintaining a standby replica in a different Availability Zone and performing automated failover in certain failure scenarios. This meets the Multi-AZ resiliency requirement while reducing operational overhead compared to self-managed database clustering on EC2.
Option A uses RDS Custom for SQL Server, which is intended for scenarios where you need OS-level and database-level access/customization. That typically increases operational responsibility and is not the simplest “resilient Multi-AZ” answer unless the scenario demands deep customization (it does not here). Options C and D propose using EBS Multi-Attach for static content, which is not a good fit for static website assets and adds complexity; Multi-Attach is limited and does not replace object storage semantics. Option D also adds substantial operational overhead by running and managing SQL Server across EC2 instances in multiple AZs, including patching, backups, and HA configuration.
Therefore, B best meets all requirements: S3 for static object content and RDS for SQL Server Multi-AZ for resilient, managed database high availability across Availability Zones.
