Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 topic 1 question 35 discussion

B. Use AWS DataSync to schedule a daily task to replicate data between the on-premises Windows file server and Amazon FSx. D. Use AWS DataSync to schedule a daily task to replicate data between the on-premises Windows file server and Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) are also valid options. They both use DataSync to schedule a daily task to replicate the data between on-premises and cloud, the main difference is the type of file system in the cloud, Amazon FSx or Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS).

For an and b we need FSx. Data Sync is useful for a batch and is able to process large data volumes. in (a) the data is also accessible from on prem. The data volume is quite small (5 GB) per day therefore (a) is feasible. In my opinion, the key requirement is "data to be available on a file system in the cloud" and ",, migrating workloads" and I think this includes that it can be accessed from servers on prem. In addition (a) replaces only a Windows File server and not the overall windows landscape in AWS. There I vote for (a), AWS Data Sync. See https://tutorialsdojo.com/aws-datasync-vs-storage-gateway/ for a comparison

DayaSync allows migration and continue access to both on-prem file server and FSx in a synchronised manner.

A seem to be a more efficient solution as it eliminates duplicate storage. Storage gateway has to be FSx, which is implicit in this option.

Comparing A and B, finally I choosed B due to the "scheduling". In A, despite file gateway could provide or combine a scheduling function, B explicitly says that operation.

Workloads are only partially migrated which means data need to be accessed simultaneously by on-prem VMs and the already migrated VMs in cloud And we should assume that the data should be up to date all the time not just updated periodically Finally, File Gateway could be Amazon FSX File GW Hence clearly A.

D is wrong cos EFS support only Linux File System

Using Amazon FSx File Gateway, you can access data with low latency from on-premise and also in-cloud always. Why do you neet to batch datasync as like B?

B. Use AWS DataSync to schedule a daily task to replicate data between the on-premises Windows file server and Amazon FSx.

Because part of the workloads have already been migrated we need a solution that keeps the data consistent between on prem and the cloud. With DataSync files stored by systems on-prem would be visible in the cloud only the following day. This could cause data inconsistencies and business disruption. The best solution is to use a file gateway to maintain files synchronised at all times. 5GBs/day is easily transferable over DX

B, for sure. Needs the data to be available on a file system in the cloud.

Windows file server -> FSx (cristal clear)

A is not the data migration

option B is the most suitable data migration strategy for the company. It leverages AWS DataSync to automate the replication of daily data increments from the on-premises Windows file server to Amazon FSx for Windows File Server. This approach provides a seamless integration for Windows-based workloads with minimal disruption and supports the company's needs for a cloud-native file system that is fully managed and integrates well with AWS services.

This option is particularly suitable for the company's requirements because it allows for scheduled daily tasks to efficiently replicate the 5 GB of new data to Amazon FSx, providing a cloud-native file system that integrates well with Windows-based workloads.

B is the answer

B is right, but, I wish they change "FSx" to "FSx for windows file server"