SAP-C02 - Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization (20% of the exam) - Section 4.3

Determine a new architecture for an existing workload by selecting the right compute, container, storage and database platforms for the workload's requirements.

Select compute, container, storage, and database platforms for a rehosted workload by comparing Amazon EC2 instances, Amazon ECS for containers, Amazon RDS managed databases, and Amazon EFS shared file storage. Match each choice to the application's performance, consistency, and operational needs rather than a like-for-like replacement.

Amazon EC2Amazon ECSAmazon RDSAmazon EFS

Practice question for this objective

Free sampleAccelerate Workload Migration and Modernizationhard

A media company is rehosting a Windows-based content application whose several stateless application servers all read and write one shared directory of assets over the SMB protocol, integrated with the company's Active Directory for file permissions. The application code and its SMB path cannot change during the lift-and-shift, and after migration many EC2 instances across Availability Zones must mount the same fully managed Windows file share with native NTFS permissions and Active Directory integration. Which storage choice BEST preserves the existing behaviour with the least re-architecture?

AMount an Amazon EFS file system on every Windows EC2 instance so they share one elastic file system across Availability Zones, relying on the managed service for permissions and automatic capacity growth.
BAttach a shared Amazon EBS Multi-Attach io2 volume to the Windows application servers and format it so each instance reads and writes the assets directly on the same block device across the fleet.
CStore the assets in an Amazon S3 bucket and reconfigure the application servers to read and write objects through the S3 API, replacing the SMB directory access with object storage calls across the fleet.
DProvision an Amazon FSx for Windows File Server file system joined to Active Directory and have the application servers mount the same SMB share across Availability Zones with native NTFS permissions. Correct

Choose Amazon FSx for Windows File Server when rehosting a Windows application that needs a shared SMB file share with Active Directory and NTFS permissions. An unchanged Windows application that depends on a shared SMB directory with NTFS permissions and Active Directory integration maps onto Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, because EFS serves NFS not SMB, EBS Multi-Attach is single-zone block storage with no file-sharing semantics, and S3 forces an API rewrite.

Why A is wrong: EFS is an NFS file system aimed at Linux POSIX workloads and does not natively serve the SMB protocol or NTFS and Active Directory permissions, so the unchanged Windows application could not mount it as its shared SMB path.

Why B is wrong: EBS Multi-Attach shares a block device only within one Availability Zone and provides no file-sharing layer, so a standard Windows file system on it would corrupt under concurrent multi-instance writes and cannot span zones.

Why C is wrong: S3 is durable shared storage but is object based rather than an SMB file share, so adopting it would require rewriting the application file access, which the lift-and-shift constraint forbids.

Why D is correct: FSx for Windows File Server is a fully managed SMB file system with native NTFS permissions and Active Directory integration that many EC2 instances can mount across Availability Zones, so the unchanged Windows application keeps its SMB path and behaviour.

See more SAP-C02 practice questions, answers explained.

Exam traps in Accelerate Workload Migration and Modernization

Answers that look right on this material and are not. Each one is a distractor from a different question in the SAP-C02 bank for this domain.

Attach a single Amazon EBS io2 volume to one EC2 instance and re-export it over NFS to the other web nodes, recreating the original file server pattern on a dedicated instance that all nodes mount across zones.
Why it is wrong: An EBS volume attaches to one instance in one Availability Zone, so re-exporting it rebuilds a single point of failure and gives no cross-zone elasticity, leaving the team running the very file server they were trying to retire.
Migrate the database to standard Amazon RDS for Oracle in a Multi-AZ deployment, accepting the managed model and removing the vendor agent so the workload fits the supported RDS configuration.
Why it is wrong: Standard RDS for Oracle gives managed resilience but deliberately withholds operating-system and privileged engine access, so removing the vendor agent would break the supported configuration the scenario says cannot change.
Move the database onto a large Amazon EC2 instance running PostgreSQL on io2 volumes, and script cron-based backups plus a manual streaming replica in another Availability Zone to approximate managed resilience.
Why it is wrong: EC2-hosted PostgreSQL preserves the engine but leaves the team owning patching, backup scripting, and replica configuration, which is precisely the operational toil they want to shed, so it fails the least-overhead requirement.

Examworthy is not affiliated with or endorsed by Amazon Web Services. Original, blueprint-aligned practice material only.