Which solution will meet these requirements?
Migrate the application to run as containers on Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS). Use Amazon S3 for storage.
Migrate the application to run as containers on Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (Amazon EKS). Use Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) for storage.
Migrate the application to Amazon EC2 instances in a Multi-AZ Auto Scaling group. Use Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) for storage.
Migrate the application to Amazon EC2 instances in a Multi-AZ Auto Scaling group. Use Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) for storage.
Explanations:
While using Amazon S3 provides scalable storage, it does not support standard file system structures for applications that require a file system interface. Applications expecting a POSIX-compliant file system would face challenges when interfacing with S3 directly.
Similar to Option A, using Amazon EKS with Amazon EBS limits scalability and flexibility for applications with large files. EBS volumes are tied to individual EC2 instances and cannot be shared across instances, which does not meet the requirement for a standard file system structure and high availability.
Migrating to Amazon EC2 instances in a Multi-AZ Auto Scaling group with Amazon EFS provides a fully managed, scalable, and highly available file system that supports standard file system interfaces. EFS automatically scales with demand, offers high availability, and requires minimal operational overhead.
Although using Amazon EC2 with Multi-AZ Auto Scaling provides scalability, using Amazon EBS does not meet the requirement for a shared standard file system. EBS is not designed for high availability across multiple instances simultaneously and is limited to a single instance at a time.
I judge that the answer is:
Migrate the application to Amazon EC2 instances in a Multi-AZ Auto Scaling group. Use Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) for storage.