Which solution effectively meets the database administrator’s criteria?
Use an instance from the I3 I/O optimized family and leverage local ephemeral storage to achieve the IOPS requirement.
Create a Nitro-based Amazon EC2 instance with an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) Provisioned IOPS SSD (io1) volume attached. Configure the volume to have 64,000 IOPS.
Create and map an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) volume to the database instance and use the volume to achieve the required IOPS for the database.
Provision two volumes and assign 32,000 IOPS to each. Create a logical volume at the operating system level that aggregates both volumes to achieve the IOPS requirements.
Explanations:
While I3 instances provide high IOPS, they rely on local ephemeral storage, which is not suitable for a persistent database migration. If the instance fails, data in ephemeral storage is lost.
Nitro-based EC2 instances can support high IOPS with EBS Provisioned IOPS SSD volumes. An io1 volume can be configured to provide 64,000 IOPS, meeting the requirements.
Amazon EFS is designed for file storage and does not provide the required IOPS for a database workload. EFS performance may not meet the specific IOPS requirement of 64,000.
While provisioning two volumes with a logical volume can aggregate IOPS, EBS volumes can only support a maximum of 64,000 IOPS when using a single io1 volume. This option would not effectively meet the requirement with just two volumes.
I deduce that the answer is:
Create a Nitro-based Amazon EC2 instance with an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) Provisioned IOPS SSD (io1) volume attached. Configure the volume to have 64,000 IOPS.