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 push the data into the AWS destination.
Install an AWS DataSync agent in the on-premises data center. Use a DataSync task between the on-premises location and AWS.
Explanations:
Amazon FSx for Lustre is designed for high-performance workloads and is not cost-effective for simple NFS file sharing. It also does not directly support NFS, making it unsuitable for the requirements of accessing data via NFS.
Amazon Elastic File System (EFS) provides a fully managed NFS file system that multiple AWS resources can access simultaneously. It is a cost-effective solution for hosting the NFS-based file system in AWS while ensuring continuous data availability.
While Amazon S3 is a cost-effective storage solution, it does not natively support the NFS protocol. Additional steps would be needed to enable access to S3 data via NFS, which complicates the migration process and goes against the requirement for NFS access.
Manually copying data using operating system commands would not provide a seamless migration process without service interruptions. This approach is less efficient and does not ensure continuous access to data during migration.
Installing an AWS DataSync agent allows for automated and efficient data transfer from the on-premises storage server to AWS without service interruptions. DataSync supports NFS and can facilitate the migration to a suitable AWS storage solution, making it a cost-effective option.
I deduce that the answer is:
Create an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system.
I strategize that the answer is:
Create an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system.