Which is the FASTEST and MOST cost-effective way to perform the migration?
Run a physical-to-virtual conversion on the application server. Transfer the server image over the internet, and transfer the static data to Amazon S3.
Run a physical-to-virtual conversion on the application server. Transfer the server image over AWS Direct Connect, and transfer the static data to Amazon S3.
Re-platform the server to Amazon EC2, and use AWS Snowball to transfer the static data to Amazon S3.
Re-platform the server by using the AWS Server Migration Service to move the code and data to a new Amazon EC2 instance.
Explanations:
While transferring the server image over the internet is possible, it is generally slower and can incur high costs due to data transfer fees. Transferring 70 TB of static files over the internet would not be efficient for a fast migration.
Although AWS Direct Connect provides a more stable and faster connection than the internet, it may not be the most cost-effective option for transferring such a large amount of data. Additionally, transferring the server image can add complexity and time to the migration process.
Using AWS Snowball allows for the physical transfer of large amounts of data (like 70 TB) efficiently and cost-effectively. This option minimizes network transfer time and costs associated with data egress, making it the fastest and most cost-effective method for migrating static data. Re-platforming the server to Amazon EC2 also facilitates upgrading the operating system.
The AWS Server Migration Service is suitable for moving code and data but may not handle the large static data efficiently. This option may take longer and can lead to higher costs due to data transfer rates, especially for 70 TB of data. It also does not specifically address the need for physical data transfer, making it less optimal compared to using Snowball.
I conclude that the answer is:
Re-platform the server to Amazon EC2, and use AWS Snowball to transfer the static data to Amazon S3.