A gaming company is moving its public scoreboard from a data center to the AWS...

A because Elasticache, despite being ideal for leaderboards per Amazon, doesn't cache at edge locations. D because FSx has higher performance for low latency needs. https://www.techtarget.com/searchaws/tip/Amazon-FSx-vs-EFS-Compare-the-AWS-file-services "FSx is built for high performance and submillisecond latency using solid-state drive storage volumes. This design enables users to select storage capacity and latency independently.Thus, even a subterabyte file system can have 256 Mbps or higher throughput and support volumes up to 64 TB."

Amazon S3 is an object storage service that can store static files such as images, videos, documents, etc. Amazon EFS is a file storage service that can store files in a hierarchical structure and supports NFS protocol. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server is a file storage service that can store files in a hierarchical structure and supports SMB protocol. Amazon EBS is a block storage service that can store data in fixed-size blocks and attach to EC2 instances.

Based on these definitions, the combination of steps that should be taken to meet the requirements are:

A. Store the static files on Amazon S3. Use Amazon CloudFront to cache objects at the edge. D. Store the server-side code on Amazon FSx for Windows File Server. Mount the FSx for Windows File Server volume on each EC2 instance to share the files.