Exam AWS Certified Developer - Associate DVA-C02 topic 1 question 23 discussion

Why is not there EFS to replace shared file system

c Option C is the most cost-effective solution to provide high availability for the centralized configuration repository. Amazon S3 provides a highly durable and available object storage service. S3 stores objects redundantly across multiple devices and multiple facilities within a region, making it highly available. The developer can migrate the existing .xml files to an S3 bucket and update the application code to use the AWS SDK to read and write configuration files from Amazon S3. Option A and B are not the best solutions as they require the developer to use the host operating system to share a folder, which can lead to a single point of failure. Option D is not a recommended solution as it is not a direct way of accessing an S3 bucket. While it is possible to use third-party tools to mount an S3 bucket as a local disk, it can lead to performance issues and additional complexity.

A) Eliminated - We need to deploy and maintain a file system on EBS, which could lead to additional complexity B) Eliminated - Instance store volumes are ephemeral and will be lost if the EC2 instance is stopped or terminated. D) Eliminated - Mounting S3 directly as a volume is not natively supported without third-party solutions or tools like s3fs, which could add unnecessary complexity and overhead.

Keyword: multi-node, Windows legacy application, shared folder as a centralized configuration repository, high availability, MOST cost-effectively maybe many of you think EFS first when reach 'shared folder', but EFS is not work with 'Windows legacy application', it depnds on OS, MOST cost-effectively ==> discard B: when you reboot or turn off EC2, data in 'instance store volumn will be lost, violate 'high availability ' ==> discard A: EBS at time, can link only one EC2, violate 'shared folder' ==> discard D: complexity than option C, you must setup more, then maintain many things afterward, violate 'MOST cost-effectively' C is match with all requirement

I am not sure why D is not the best option. This could give a no code solution to legacy application.

Why A is not correct answer ?

i think EFS should be added to answer

C is the correct answer.

S3 mountpoint does not support editing files or deleting directories. So the answer is C

D since we have s3 mountpoint available now https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2023/03/mountpoint-amazon-s3/ https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/mountpoint.html

Option C is the most cost-effective solution to provide high availability for the centralized configuration repository. Amazon S3 provides a highly durable and available object storage service. S3 stores objects redundantly across multiple devices and multiple facilities within a region, making it highly available. The developer can migrate the existing .xml files to an S3 bucket and update the application code to use the AWS SDK to read and write configuration files from Amazon S3.

Today It's D. Few months ago I'd pick C, but since then amazon released mountpoint for linux, so it's possible to mount S3 on any major Linux distro, by using WSL 2 it is also possible to mount S3 on Windows. Doing so cuts the cost of modifying the legacy application. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/mountpoint-installation.html https://aws.plainenglish.io/mounting-amazon-s3-buckets-on-windows-52b5f1434cd7

EBS and Instance Store just attached one instance so these's expense and don't scalable, and S3 it's the best option to handle the repository of .xml because it's very scalable and low-cost

It is a Windows legacy application. What if the sdk doesn't support the app? I choose D.

Correct answer is C

In theses options, this is more correct

C https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/WindowsGuide/AmazonS3.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/UsingAWSSDK.html