Which solution will meet these requirements?

Explanations:

Migrating to Amazon EC2 instances would require more management and operational overhead, as the company would need to handle database maintenance, backups, and patching, which contradicts the requirement to reduce operational overhead. While using AWS KMS for encryption is beneficial, it does not address the overall goal of minimizing management tasks.

Migrating to a Multi-AZ Amazon RDS for SQL Server DB instance provides a managed database service that automates backups, patching, and failover, significantly reducing operational overhead. Additionally, using AWS KMS for encryption enhances data security, making this option the best fit for the company’s requirements.

Migrating data to an Amazon S3 bucket is not suitable for relational databases as S3 is an object storage service, not designed for relational data operations. Although Amazon Macie can help with data security in S3, it does not fulfill the requirement of migrating SQL Server databases effectively.

Migrating to Amazon DynamoDB would require a complete redesign of the data model since DynamoDB is a NoSQL database and not a relational database. This migration would increase operational complexity and does not meet the requirement of handling sensitive relational data from SQL Server. Additionally, using Amazon CloudWatch Logs for data security is not sufficient for protecting sensitive database content.