Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardAWS Storage Services

A financial analytics institution is building a risk modeling application on AWS. The application runs on a fleet of Amazon Elastic Container Service (Amazon ECS) tasks distributed across multiple Availability Zones. These tasks must concurrently read and write to a shared scratch space that automatically scales throughput to handle unpredictable transaction data spikes. Additionally, the raw transactional inputs must be archived for compliance in a secure, write-once-read-many (WORM) storage class for seven years, where retrieval can take up to 12 hours. Which two AWS storage configurations or services should be selected to meet these requirements?

  1. Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) to provide the shared, elastic concurrent read/write access for the container tasks across multiple Availability Zones.Answer
  2. Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) Glacier Deep Archive with S3 Object Lock enabled to store the compliance archives in WORM format.Answer
  3. C
    Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) with Multi-Attach enabled to serve as the shared high-throughput scratch space across all tasks.
  4. D
    Amazon S3 Standard-Infrequent Access (S3 Standard-IA) to serve as the primary WORM-compliant archive for long-term retention.
  5. E
    Amazon EC2 Instance Store to preserve the raw transactional archives locally on the container host instances.

Answer

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) to provide the shared, elastic concurrent read/write access, and Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) Glacier Deep Archive with S3 Object Lock enabled to store compliance archives.
The correct selections are Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) and Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive with S3 Object Lock. Amazon EFS provides standard file system interfaces and supports concurrent access across multiple Availability Zones, which perfectly meets the container scratch space requirement. Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive provides the lowest-cost storage class for compliance archives with a 12-hour retrieval time, and combining it with S3 Object Lock ensures WORM compliance.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the scratch space requirements: The application runs on ECS tasks across multiple Availability Zones, requiring shared, concurrent read/write access and elastic scaling. Amazon EFS fits this profile as a fully managed, elastic file system accessible across multiple AZs.
Amazon EFS is selected for the container scratch space.
It natively supports multi-AZ concurrent access and dynamic throughput scaling.
2
Analyze the compliance archival requirements: Data must be retained for seven years, secured with WORM (Write Once Read Many) controls, and can tolerate a retrieval time of up to 12 hours. Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive is the most cost-effective storage class for this retention period and retrieval time, and S3 Object Lock provides WORM capabilities.
Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive with S3 Object Lock is selected for the compliance archives.
It offers the lowest cost for long-term archival with WORM compliance enforcement.
3
Evaluate the wrong options: EBS Multi-Attach is restricted to a single AZ; S3 Standard-IA is not cost-optimal for seven-year archiving and lacks native WORM without Object Lock; EC2 Instance Store is ephemeral and will lose data.
Dismiss EBS Multi-Attach, S3 Standard-IA, and EC2 Instance Store as incorrect options.
They fail key structural, cost, or durability requirements.

Key Concept

Distinguishing between Amazon EBS, Amazon EFS, and Amazon S3 storage classes, along with understanding compliance features like S3 Object Lock.
Rate this question

Topics

AWS Storage Services

More questions from this topic