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

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.check_circle Correct

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.