Which solution will meet these requirements?
Use a cluster placement group. Attach a single Provisioned IOPS SSD Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume to all the instances by using Amazon EBS Multi-Attach.
Use a cluster placement group. Create shared file systems across the instances by using Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS).
Use a partition placement group. Create shared file systems across the instances by using Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS).
Use a spread placement group. Attach a single Provisioned IOPS SSD Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume to all the instances by using Amazon EBS Multi-Attach.
Explanations:
A cluster placement group provides the lowest latency for node-to-node communication within EC2 instances. Attaching a single Provisioned IOPS SSD EBS volume using EBS Multi-Attach enables shared high-performance storage across all instances, meeting both latency and storage requirements.
A cluster placement group is appropriate for low-latency communication, but Amazon EFS is not designed for high-performance, low-latency storage for HPC workloads. EFS may introduce higher latencies and doesn’t provide the same performance as EBS with provisioned IOPS.
A partition placement group does not ensure low-latency communication. While EFS can provide shared storage, it is not optimized for high-performance HPC workloads, as it generally offers higher latencies than EBS provisioned for HPC scenarios.
A spread placement group is intended for high availability, not for low-latency communication. EBS Multi-Attach can be used for shared storage, but the spread placement group is not optimal for low-latency requirements compared to a cluster placement group.
I classify that the answer is:
Use a cluster placement group. Attach a single Provisioned IOPS SSD Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume to all the instances by using Amazon EBS Multi-Attach.