Exam AWS Certified Developer Associate topic 1 question 31 discussion

B is the answer Best approach is to have everything in S3, so any instance spun into the ASG can have access to the uploaded data

EFS is the only true answer !

A) Eliminated - While EBS can be used for persistent storage, it is not designed to be shared between multiple instances easily

Amazon S3 is designed for high availability and durability, and it allows multiple instances to access the same data simultaneously. By rearchitecting the application to upload files directly to S3, you ensure that all instances in the Auto Scaling group can access the uploads immediately.

Although EFS would best option but since its not here S3 is the most correct among the rest

Using Amazon EBS with file synchronization software would require additional complexity and may not provide the immediate consistency required for uploads to be available to all instances in real-time. It could lead to synchronization delays and potential issues in an Auto Scaling group.

B is the right answer, be careful that the EC2 instances have a role with the right policy to write and read content from the specific bucket

S3 seems logical here

Of course B is obvious. But why are others wrong? A - need to reboot instance? -> out C - instance storage cannot shared between instances D - only achieve eventual consistency while the requirement is "immediately available"

Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS)

the best approach to meet the requirements of the migration would be to use Amazon S3 and rearchitect the application so that all uploads are placed in S3

I am going with B

A lot of effort on D, B is scalable and more secure for future deployments

I guess D is the answer with EBS multi-attach: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ebs-volumes-multi.html Volume can be shared ASAP to all EC2 instances in the ASG.

The best solution should be EFS. But there is no EFS in the option. B is the next best. This is my thoughts With S3, there are efforts to modify the code, for new files, S3 has strong consistence. But for update/delete files, S3 has eventually consistence only. For D, data sync application could not make sure strong consistence. And there are a lot efforts for configuration. Advantage is that, there is no need to modify the code.

B. Use Amazon S3 and rearchitect the application so all uploads are placed in S3. Storing user uploads in a local directory on the server is not a scalable or reliable solution, especially in a distributed environment with an Auto Scaling group. Amazon S3 provides a highly scalable and durable object storage service that is designed for storing and retrieving any amount of data from anywhere. By rearchitecting the application to use S3, all uploads can be saved to S3 and made immediately available to all instances in the Auto Scaling group. This approach provides scalability, durability, and availability, which are all important considerations when migrating to the cloud.

The eventual consistency rules out D.