Like I said, what was in that document is no different to what you'd need if you were going to run enterprise WP on-prem (or any HA provider for that matter). B

Like I said, what was in that document is no different to what you'd need if you were going to run enterprise WP on-prem (or any HA provider for that matter). But if you want something simpler or cheaper to run on cloud hosting then a classic dynamic CMS like WP isn't going to cut it. Where AWS really comes into is stuff like serverless (yeah, I hate that term too), auto-scaling, object storage, etc. I've got a few static sites that are compiled in AWS Code Build whenever I push new markdown to GitHub (literally just using shell scripts and pandoc). They're then pushed to S3 and sat behind CloudFront. It costs me a few dollars a month to host, I don't need to think about scaling and I get near instant page load times. Running that kind of thing on-prem wouldn't even come close to being as cheap nor convenient as AWS. This is why I commented about WP being ill-suited for modern cloud deployments in my edit. To be clear, I'm not claiming AWS are the only hosting providers to offer the aforementioned. The same arguments can be made for and against GCP, Azure and so on and so forth. I'm also not advocating that everyone should switch away from WP or adapt their workloads for the cloud. People should just use what works for them the best. I'm only commenting on why that AWS architecture isn't as insane as it first appears.