Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?
Use the Amazon S3 Standard storage class. Create an S3 Lifecycle policy to move infrequently accessed data to S3 Glacier.
Use the Amazon S3 Standard storage class. Create an S3 Lifecycle policy to move infrequently accessed data to S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA).
Use the Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) Standard storage class. Create a lifecycle management policy to move infrequently accessed data to EFS Standard-Infrequent Access (EFS Standard-IA).
Use the Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) One Zone storage class. Create a lifecycle management policy to move infrequently accessed data to EFS One Zone-Infrequent Access (EFS One Zone-IA).
Explanations:
Amazon S3 is not POSIX-compliant, which is a requirement for the storage layer in this scenario. While it provides high durability, it cannot be used directly by EC2 instances as a shared file system.
Similar to Option A, Amazon S3 does not meet the POSIX-compliance requirement. Although it offers lifecycle policies for transitioning to S3 Standard-IA, it does not provide the necessary file system capabilities for the application to function properly across multiple EC2 instances.
Amazon EFS is a fully managed, POSIX-compliant file system designed for use with EC2 instances. It provides high availability and durability. The lifecycle management policy to transition infrequently accessed data to EFS Standard-IA optimizes costs while maintaining access requirements.
While EFS One Zone is a valid option, it is less durable than EFS Standard because it stores data in a single Availability Zone. This does not meet the requirement for maximum data durability across multiple AZs, making it a less favorable option for highly available applications.
I chart that the answer is:
Use the Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) Standard storage class. Create a lifecycle management policy to move infrequently accessed data to EFS Standard-Infrequent Access (EFS Standard-IA).