AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Associate (SAA-C03) — Question 573

A company uses locally attached storage to run a latency-sensitive application on premises. The company is using a lift and shift method to move the application to the AWS Cloud. The company does not want to change the application architecture.

Which solution will meet these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

Answer options

• A. Configure an Auto Scaling group with an Amazon EC2 instance. Use an Amazon FSx for Lustre file system to run the application.
• B. Host the application on an Amazon EC2 instance. Use an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) GP2 volume to run the application.
• C. Configure an Auto Scaling group with an Amazon EC2 instance. Use an Amazon FSx for OpenZFS file system to run the application.
• D. Host the application on an Amazon EC2 instance. Use an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) GP3 volume to run the application.

Correct answer: D

Explanation

Hosting the application on an Amazon EC2 instance with an Amazon EBS GP3 volume is the most cost-effective solution because GP3 volumes provide SSD performance at a lower price per GB compared to GP2, while allowing independent configuration of throughput and IOPS. Using Amazon FSx systems (A and C) is unnecessary and significantly more expensive for an application that originally used locally attached storage. GP3 (D) is preferred over GP2 (B) as it offers a 20% lower price point with higher baseline performance.