The correct answer is: A. the cost of creating an ebs volume is lesser than creating a similarly sized s3 bucket.
EBS volumes are block storage volumes that can be attached to EC2 instances. They are persistent, meaning that data is not lost when the instance is stopped or terminated. S3 buckets are object storage buckets that can be used to store any type of data. They are not persistent, meaning that data is lost when the bucket is deleted.
The cost of EBS volumes depends on the size of the volume, the type of storage (SSD or HDD), and the IOPS (input/output operations per second) requirements. The cost of S3 buckets depends on the size of the bucket and the amount of data stored in the bucket.
In general, EBS volumes are more expensive than S3 buckets. However, EBS volumes offer more features and functionality than S3 buckets. For example, EBS volumes can be used as instance boot partitions, and they offer fast AMI boot times. S3 buckets cannot be used as instance boot partitions, and they do not offer fast AMI boot times.
Therefore, the statement “the cost of creating an ebs volume is lesser than creating a similarly sized s3 bucket” is incorrect.