Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

Explanations:

FSx for Lustre is designed for high-performance workloads requiring fast throughput and low-latency access. While it provides fast storage, it may not be the most cost-effective for a latency-sensitive application that doesn’t require Lustre’s performance. Additionally, the lift-and-shift scenario does not necessitate the use of Lustre, making this option overly complex and costly.

Amazon EBS GP2 volumes are designed for general-purpose workloads and may not meet the low-latency requirements of a latency-sensitive application. They offer good performance for many use cases but are not optimal for workloads that require consistent low-latency storage.

FSx for OpenZFS provides advanced file system features but is more suited for applications requiring complex file system management and high throughput, which may not align with the requirements of a latency-sensitive application. It also introduces more complexity compared to simpler EBS solutions.

Amazon EBS GP3 volumes provide consistent low-latency performance with the ability to scale throughput and IOPS independently. This makes GP3 a cost-effective solution for latency-sensitive applications, and it matches the lift-and-shift requirement by providing a familiar block storage model similar to local storage. This option is optimal for the scenario.