AWS Transfer Family with Amazon EFS for Batch Processing

SAA-C03 By islever Editorial Last updated

Design secure workloads and applications. Design highly available and/or fault-tolerant architectures.

Short answer

A Deploy AWS Transfer for SFTP and an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system for storage. Use an Amazon EC2 instance in an Auto Scaling group with a scheduled scaling policy to run the batch operation.

Question

A company has a nightly batch processing routine that analyzes report files that an on-premises file system receives daily through SFTP. The company wants to move the solution to the AWS Cloud. The solution must be highly available and resilient. The solution also must minimize operational effort. Which solution meets these requirements?
  1. Deploy AWS Transfer for SFTP and an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system for storage. Use an Amazon EC2 instance in an Auto Scaling group with a scheduled scaling policy to run the batch operation. Correct Answer
  2. Deploy an Amazon EC2 instance that runs Linux and an SFTP service. Use an Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) volume for storage. Use an Auto Scaling group with the minimum number of instances and desired number of instances set to 1.
  3. Deploy an Amazon EC2 instance that runs Linux and an SFTP service. Use an Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file system for storage. Use an Auto Scaling group with the minimum number of instances and desired number of instances set to 1.
  4. Deploy AWS Transfer for SFTP and an Amazon S3 bucket for storage. Modify the application to pull the batch files from Amazon S3 to an Amazon EC2 instance for processing. Use an EC2 instance in an Auto Scaling group with a scheduled scaling policy to run the batch operation.

Key Takeaways

The key insight is leveraging AWS managed services (Transfer Family + EFS) to eliminate self-managed SFTP servers while maintaining native file system semantics for existing applications.

This question evaluates the design of a highly available, low-operational-effort SFTP solution using AWS Transfer Family and Amazon EFS to support nightly batch processing.

Common mistake: Candidates often choose S3 because it is more commonly associated with high availability, failing to recognize that EFS provides native mountable file systems required by many legacy batch scripts without modification.

Expert Analysis

Why the Answer Is Correct

Option A is the correct answer because it utilizes AWS Transfer Family, a fully managed service that eliminates the operational overhead of managing EC2 instances for SFTP. By integrating directly with Amazon EFS, which supports concurrent network mounting via NFS, the solution ensures high availability and allows the existing batch application to read files as if they were on an on-premises file system. The use of an Auto Scaling group with scheduled scaling optimizes costs for the nightly batch job, meeting the requirement to minimize operational effort.

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Options B and C involve deploying and managing EC2 instances running Linux and an SFTP service, which significantly increases operational effort compared to the managed AWS Transfer Family. Option D suggests moving data to S3 but requires modifying the application to pull files from S3; this contradicts the "minimize operational effort" constraint by requiring code changes or wrapper scripts, whereas EFS allows the existing application logic to remain unchanged.

Community Comment Notes

Community consensus strongly favored Option A. Users noted that AWS Transfer Family now supports direct integration with EFS, making S3 unnecessary for file-based workflows. One commenter highlighted that Option D would require application modifications, violating the operational efficiency requirement. Others pointed out that EFS is a natural fit for migrating on-premises file systems due to its POSIX compliance and mounting capabilities.

Official Reference

These links open the official vendor documentation in a new tab.

Exam Strategy

When a requirement emphasizes 'minimizing operational effort,' always look for fully managed services first (like AWS Transfer Family over EC2). If the workload involves file systems and existing applications, prefer EFS over S3 unless the application is specifically designed for object storage APIs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can AWS Transfer Family integrate with EFS?

Yes, AWS Transfer Family supports mounting to Amazon EFS file systems, allowing users to transfer files directly to EFS volumes.

Why not use S3 instead of EFS for this scenario?

While S3 is highly available, it uses an object API. EFS provides a native POSIX-compliant file system interface, allowing existing batch applications to access files without code modification.

More SAA-C03 FAQ →

Community Votes

A
78%
D
22%

78% of anonymous learners picked answer A. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.

Discussion 13 contributions

Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded, and comments reflect the views of individual contributors.

From public community threads 13

  1. Sivaeas 👍 8 Answered A
    The Answer should be A not D because ... Modify the application to pull the batch files from Amazon S3 to an Amazon EC2 instance for processing.--Why we need to do this when we can move the file directly to EFS in EC2 system AWS Transfer Family now also supports file transfers to Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) file systems as well as Amazon S3.
  2. BBR01 👍 5 Answered A
    A should be enough. EFS can be mounted to ASG directly, and there is no need to use S3 in the middle.
  3. JackyCCK 👍 4
    I think the ans is A as well, option D require "Modify the application" which is not "minimize operational effort"
  4. PolarFox 👍 3 Answered D
    trasnfer + S3 = HA, scheduled scaling = resilient
  5. osmk 👍 2 Answered A
    The service is designed to be highly scalable, highly available, and highly durable. Amazon EFS offers the following file system types to meet your availability and durability needs ->https://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/whatisefs.html Amazon S3 achieves high availability by replicating data across multiple servers within AWS data centers->https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/Welcome.html
Show 8 more comments
  1. MatAlves 👍 2 Answered A
    "... an on-premises file system receives" = file system > EFS. SFT in AWS = AWS Transfer family Even though D works, that would require changes in the current architecture.
  2. Scheldon 👍 2 Answered A
    AnswerA Option A and D will work, but taking into consideration requirements I would go with A
  3. 7fb06b3 👍 2 Answered D
    Option D, I'm not 100% sure.. Always prefer S3 over EFS
  4. zdi561 👍 1 Answered A
    A and D both work , but EFS is more natural file system for original batch routing, and could be faster than S3
  5. NayeraB 👍 1 Answered D
    I'm not 100% sure, but D looks like the right flow to me
  6. Franjly 👍 2 Answered A
    File system = efs, fsx, ....
  7. khoantd 👍 1 Answered C
    Option D
  8. osmk 👍 1
    A>>>>>

Reader comments & corrections

No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.

Log in to comment, report an error, or add a note about this question.

Submitted for moderation before publishing. Keep it helpful and respectful.

S3 Multi-Region Access Point and Replication Strategy

S-grade

Securing NLB with Security Groups for Minimal Change

S-grade

Most Cost-Effective 7-Year Retention for EBS Snapshots?

S-grade

AWS Forecast vs SageMaker for Time-Series Prediction

S-grade

Practice All SAA-C03 Questions

Access 120 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.

View Full SAA-C03 Practice Test →

← Back to SAA-C03 Study Guide