Question #1636
A media company is migrating its on-premises video editing suite to AWS. The suite uses an NFS-based file system that stores 500 GB of high-definition video files. The company requires the migration to occur without disrupting ongoing editing sessions, and multiple EC2 instances in AWS must simultaneously access the data via the NFS protocol. Which combination of steps will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively? (Choose two.)
Create an Amazon FSx for Lustre file system.
Create an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system.
Create an Amazon S3 bucket to receive the data.
Manually use an operating system copy command to transfer the data to AWS.
Deploy an AWS DataSync agent on-premises and configure a DataSync task to transfer data to AWS.
Explanation
The correct answers are B (Amazon EFS) and E (AWS DataSync).
Why B (EFS) is correct: Amazon EFS is a managed NFS file system that supports concurrent access by multiple EC2 instances, aligning with the requirement for simultaneous NFS access. It is cost-effective for shared storage scenarios.
Why E (DataSync) is correct: AWS DataSync automates and accelerates data transfer from on-premises to AWS. It ensures minimal disruption by efficiently syncing data while ongoing edits occur, avoiding downtime.
Other options:
- A (FSx for Lustre): Optimized for HPC, not cost-effective for general NFS use.
- C (S3): Not a file system; EC2 cannot access S3 via NFS natively.
- D (Manual copy): Disruptive and error-prone, unsuitable for live data.
Key Points: Use EFS for shared NFS storage and DataSync for seamless migration. Avoid solutions that disrupt workflows or lack NFS support.
Answer
The correct answer is: BE