Lift and shift three Linux VMs to EC2 behind an ALB with shared EFS storage
A company has an application that has a web frontend. The application runs in the company's on-premises data center and requires access to file storage for critical data. The application runs on three Linux VMs for redundancy. The architecture includes a load balancer with HTTP request-based routing. The company needs to migrate the application to AWS as quickly as possible. The architecture on AWS must be highly available. Which solution will meet these requirements with the FEWEST changes to the architecture?
Community Votes
100% of anonymous learners picked answer B. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
EFS is the only shared file system in the options that multiple EC2 instances can mount concurrently, and keeping EC2 instances behind an Application Load Balancer preserves the existing HTTP request-based routing model, so nothing in the architecture needs to be redesigned.
An application with a web frontend runs on three Linux VMs for redundancy behind a load balancer doing HTTP request-based routing, and it needs shared file storage for critical data. The company wants to migrate as quickly as possible and the AWS architecture must be highly available.
Reaching for FSx for Lustre with EKS containers, or for S3 with Fargate. EFS is the natural match for a VM-based lift-and-shift with a mounted file system, FSx for Lustre is built for HPC workloads, and S3 is an object store that would require rewriting how the application reads its files, which is the opposite of the fewest changes requirement.
Community Discussion (7 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
The application is a three-node Linux VM tier behind an HTTP-routing load balancer, and the requirement is the fewest architecture changes. Migrating to EC2 instances across three Availability Zones keeps the same compute model, and an Application Load Balancer provides the same layer 7 HTTP request-based routing the existing load balancer performs. Amazon EFS is a shared NFS file system that all three instances mount simultaneously, which directly satisfies the shared file storage for critical data requirement and removes the single point of failure the on-premises design had. Spreading the instances across three Availability Zones delivers the high availability requirement.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
A: Moving to Fargate containers and S3 changes the compute model and the storage access pattern, so it is not the fewest changes, and S3 has no POSIX mount semantics for an application that expects a file system. C: EKS with FSx for Lustre introduces both a Kubernetes control plane the team must operate and a file system priced and designed for HPC workloads, which is unnecessary for a three-node web application. D: EBS volumes attach to instances only within a single Availability Zone and cannot be attached to the same instance across Regions, so cross-Region replication of an EBS-backed instance is not a valid availability architecture, and it also violates the single-Region scope implied by the ALB.Community Comment Notes
The community voted 100 to 0 for B, citing the AWS EFS documentation statement that a file system can be used as a common data source for workloads running on multiple instances, and the general reasoning was that EC2 plus EFS plus ALB is a one-to-one mapping of the existing on-premises architecture.Official Reference
Related Analysis
Practice All SAP-C02 Questions
Access 85 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full SAP-C02 Practice Test →