Answer: Host the application on an Amazon EC2 instance. Use an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) GP3 volume to run the application.

## Explanation **Correct Answer: D** - Host the application on an Amazon EC2 instance. Use an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) GP3 volume to run the application. ### Why Option D is Correct: 1. **Lift and Shift Requirement**: The company wants to move the application without changing architecture. Using an EC2 instance with EBS volumes is the closest equivalent to on-premises servers with locally attached storage. 2. **Cost-Effectiveness**: EBS GP3 volumes are more cost-effective than GP2 volumes because: - GP3 provides baseline performance at lower cost - GP3 allows separate provisioning of IOPS and throughput, enabling better cost optimization - GP3 is generally 20% cheaper than GP2 for the same performance 3. **Latency-Sensitive Application**: EBS provides low-latency block storage that's suitable for latency-sensitive applications. 4. **Simplicity**: A single EC2 instance with EBS is simpler and more cost-effective than Auto Scaling groups with file systems. ### Why Other Options are Incorrect: **Option A (FSx for Lustre)**: - FSx for Lustre is designed for high-performance computing (HPC) and machine learning workloads - It's more expensive than EBS - Not necessary for a simple lift-and-shift migration - Auto Scaling adds unnecessary complexity and cost **Option B (EBS GP2)**: - GP2 volumes are more expensive than GP3 for equivalent performance - GP3 offers better price-performance ratio - GP2 ties storage performance to volume size, which can lead to overprovisioning **Option C (FSx for OpenZFS)**: - FSx for OpenZFS is designed for Linux file system compatibility - More expensive than EBS - Auto Scaling adds unnecessary complexity - Not the most cost-effective solution ### Key Considerations: - **EBS GP3 vs GP2**: GP3 provides baseline 3,000 IOPS and 125 MB/s throughput regardless of volume size, while GP2 performance scales with volume size - **File Systems vs Block Storage**: For lift-and-shift of applications using locally attached storage, block storage (EBS) is more appropriate than file systems - **Auto Scaling**: Not needed if the application architecture isn't changing and the company wants minimal modifications **Best Practice**: For lift-and-shift migrations of latency-sensitive applications, start with EC2 instances and EBS GP3 volumes, then optimize further based on actual performance requirements.

Author: LeetQuiz Editorial Team