A company is migrating a Windows-based application that relies on a shared file system accessed over the SMB protocol, with support for NTFS access control lists and integration with the existing Microsoft Active Directory domain. The team wants a fully managed file storage service so they do not run and patch their own file servers. Which AWS storage service meets these requirements with the least operational overhead?
- AAmazon FSx for Windows File Server, joined to the Active Directory domain so the application uses SMB shares with native NTFS access control lists. Correct
- BAmazon Elastic File System, mounted on the application hosts so the Windows servers share a single managed file system over the network.
- CAmazon S3 with the objects exposed through a file gateway so the application reads and writes files using the SMB protocol against the bucket.
- DAmazon FSx for Lustre, provisioned in the same Availability Zone as the application so the Windows servers gain a high-performance shared file system.
Why A is correct: FSx for Windows File Server is a fully managed Windows file system that natively serves SMB, enforces NTFS access control lists, and joins Active Directory, matching every stated requirement with no servers to patch.
Why B is wrong: EFS is a managed NFS file system built for Linux POSIX workloads and does not natively serve SMB with NTFS access control lists or join an Active Directory domain, so it does not fit the Windows requirement.
Why C is wrong: A file gateway can present SMB shares backed by S3, but it adds a gateway appliance to operate and does not deliver the low-latency native Windows file semantics the migrated application expects.
Why D is wrong: FSx for Lustre is a high-performance file system aimed at Linux compute and HPC workloads, and it does not provide native SMB access, NTFS permissions, or Active Directory integration for Windows.