Question #1599
A company is migrating a latency-sensitive application that relies on locally attached storage to the AWS Cloud using a lift-and-shift approach. The company requires minimal architectural changes and aims to optimize costs while maintaining low latency.
Which solution MOST cost-effectively meets these requirements?
Deploy the application using an Auto Scaling group with Amazon EC2 instances and an Amazon FSx for Windows File Server file system.
Host the application on an Amazon EC2 instance with an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) io2 Block Express volume.
Configure an Auto Scaling group with Amazon EC2 instances and an Amazon FSx for Lustre file system.
Host the application on an Amazon EC2 instance with an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) GP3 volume.
Explanation
Answer D is correct because:
1. Minimal Architectural Changes: Lift-and-shift requires avoiding major redesign. EBS GP3 volumes are directly attachable to EC2 instances, mirroring locally attached storage without needing shared file systems (FSx) or Auto Scaling groups.
2. Low Latency: GP3 volumes offer baseline performance of 3,000 IOPS (scalable up to 16,000) with low latency, suitable for latency-sensitive applications.
3. Cost Optimization: GP3 is cheaper than io2 Block Express (Answer B) and avoids the overhead of managed file systems (Answers A/C), which are more expensive and require application changes.
Why other options are incorrect:
- A/C: FSx (Windows/Lustre) introduces shared file systems, requiring application changes and adding latency/network overhead.
- B: io2 Block Express offers higher performance but at a higher cost, conflicting with cost optimization.
- Auto Scaling (A/C) adds complexity if the application isn’t designed for horizontal scaling.
Key Points:
- Lift-and-shift favors simplicity and minimal changes.
- EBS GP3 balances cost, performance, and compatibility for latency-sensitive workloads.
Answer
The correct answer is: D