Exam AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate SAA-C03 topic 1 question 64 discussion

https://www.examtopics.com/discussions/amazon/view/83281-exam-aws-certified-solutions-architect-associate-saa-c02/

D IS WRONG - Its used for caching. you cannot 'Move the on-premises file data to the FSx File Gateway.' which is stated in answer D. It pretty sure AWS employee's are spamming this site with the wrong answers intentionally.

On reconsidering, A might be incorrect. First part of te answer looks ok, but later it says "Configure apps to use FSx in AWS". So that doesnt make sense - what about the on prem data? So perhaps its better to simply move all data to FSx on AWS. I think none of the choices are perfect. So D comes close.

D is incorrect choice.The documentation describes the FSx File Gateway as: "FSx for Windows File Server makes all the shares on the server available as shares on your Amazon FSx File Gateway." - so it is simply a fronting for the FSx Windows File Server, not an independent storage FSx system. So I would choose A as a more appropriate response.

You can't migrate data to FSx File Gateway --- Migrate your files to FSx for Windows File Server. For more information, see Migrating existing file storage to FSx for Windows File Server.

Ans A - it can only be A or D. With D introducing unnecessary operations for an eventual AWS migration

The question says the company is moving it's workload from windows to AWS. Plus D involves operational overhead.

Bad question. A - Doesn't meet the "low latency" requirement due to VPN connection. D - It's not possible to "move file data to FSx File Gateway". Instead, it provides improved latency with local caching. B and C - wrong, since the question requires "no significant changes to the existing file access patterns" I'd go with D, but not 100% happy with it.

A. Deploy and configure Amazon FSx for Windows File Server on AWS. Move the on-premises file data to FSx for Windows File Server. Reconfigure the workloads to use FSx for Windows File Server on AWS.

keyword as company continue to migrate workload from om-prem to cloud

I would go with option A as question mentions "solution that minimizes operational overhead" . Adding FSx File Gateway would add more complexity. They already have Site to Site VPN. This way min change required.

Will go with option D as option A is missing the Fsx File gateway component deployed on-premise which will provide the low latency access.

min. operational overhead.

Option D suggests deploying both Amazon FSx for Windows File Server on AWS and an Amazon FSx File Gateway on premises. While this option may provide a solution for accessing on-premises file data in AWS, it introduces additional complexity and potential overhead that may not be necessary given the company's existing AWS Site-to-Site VPN connectivity. Here are some reasons why Option D may not be the most suitable choice: Complexity, Cost, Redundancy and Operational Overhead.

D: FSX File gateway is nessary for communication between on-premise and aws FSX for window

Windows File Servers + Preserve compatibility so BC is wrong due to S3 A does not provide on-premise access and suggest to move the files which is wrong as company wants to keep on-prem access D meets all the requirements.

To meet the company's requirements of accessing both AWS and on-premises file storage with minimum latency, while minimizing operational overhead and maintaining existing file access patterns, a solutions architect should choose Option A: Deploy and configure Amazon FSx for Windows File Server on AWS. This option allows for the deployment of FSx for Windows File Server on AWS, facilitating the migration of on-premises file data to FSx. By reconfiguring the workloads to use FSx for Windows File Server on AWS, the company can ensure seamless access to the file data while leveraging the benefits of AWS infrastructure. This solution aligns with the company's objective of moving Windows workloads to AWS and utilizes the existing AWS Site-to-Site VPN connection for connectivity.