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

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"

The key here is the word "migration". This suggests DataSync. If the objective was to set up a permanent hybrid solution, then AWS Storage Gateway would be the solution. Again an example where the entire question hinges on one single word.

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/fsx/latest/WindowsGuide/migrate-files-fsx.html

The most appropriate data migration strategy for the company, considering the need for the data to be available on a file system in the cloud and the existing AWS Direct Connect connection, is: * B. Use AWS DataSync to schedule a daily task to replicate data between the on-premises Windows file server and Amazon FSx. Option B is the best choice because AWS DataSync is a data transfer service designed to make it easy to move large amounts of data online between on-premises storage systems and AWS storage services. Amazon FSx provides fully managed Windows file servers in the cloud, offering native Windows file system capabilities, making it an ideal target for Windows-based workloads that the company has migrated to AWS. Using DataSync to automate the daily replication of data ensures the new data produced is consistently available in the cloud with minimal manual effort.

company migrated part of its Windows-based workload to AWS and needs the data to be available on a file system in the cloud. -> This line is key here, they have already moved part of Windows workload and require data to be available on another file system in the cloud. This is possible by Data Sync migrating data to FSx for Windows Server (SMB supporting file server). File Gateway - would for connection to S3 and hardware compliance locally will give illusion of File Server. This is good for DR, Backup and migration to cheaper storage. But doesn't solve the purpose of moving data and creating another file share in Cloud.

B incorrect. Since you created a DX between AWS and on-premises, you can mount FSx in your local server directly. It doesn’t make sense to schedule a daily task.

Anyone saying A has never used file gateway before. You can't "point the existing file share to the new file gateway". That's not how file gateways work.

Windows workload thus C and D are ruled out (EFS is for NFS only). B is precisely stated pointing to FSx for Windows, while A to work we need to imply we are using FSx for Windows File Gateway which is not (clearly stated). Assuming it is FSx for Windows File Gateway, A is more versatile as is quicker in synching data (B once a day)

Answer B. Company is looking for a migration strategy. With AWS Direct Connect in place, Datasync replication is the way to go. 5GB of new data is would be replicated in no time.

Aren't we talking about migration not sync. Migration means move data and use on solution. So if we use option B it says schedule daily task to replicate. That means we have on premise working and then replication to cloud. Shouldn't migration means migrate to one file system that is either cloud gateway or keep on server