Migrate Legacy .NET SQL Server to AWS: Rehost with RDS for SQL Server
A company is migrating a legacy on-premises .NET application to AWS. The application uses a SQL Server database and requires full control over the operating system for compliance. Which migration strategy should the solutions architect recommend to minimize rework while meeting compliance requirements?
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Rehost the application on EC2 instances and use RDS Custom for SQL Server.
Rehosting (lift-and-shift) with EC2 and RDS Custom for SQL Server allows the company to move the application and database with minimal changes while retaining OS-level control for compliance. RDS Custom provides OS access (SSH, patching) unlike standard RDS, meeting the compliance requirement. Option B (DynamoDB) would require significant application refactoring. Option C (RDS for SQL Server without Custom) lacks OS access. Option D (ECS with containers) adds containerization rework and does not inherently provide OS-level control.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Rehost the application on EC2 instances and use RDS Custom for SQL Server.
Why this is correct
Rehosting on EC2 preserves the application with minimal rework, while RDS Custom for SQL Server grants operating system and database-level access needed for compliance. Standard RDS withholds OS access, and replatforming or refactoring would demand significant rework.
- ✗
Replace the database with Amazon DynamoDB and refactor the application.
Why it's wrong here
DynamoDB is a NoSQL key-value store, so replacing SQL Server forces schema and query rewrites, contradicting minimal rework, and it grants no operating system control. DynamoDB suits greenfield, high-scale key-access workloads, not lift-and-shift migrations of relational .NET applications.
- ✗
Replatform the application to use RDS for SQL Server and deploy the application on EC2 instances.
Why it's wrong here
RDS for SQL Server is managed, so the company cannot control the database host operating system, breaching the compliance requirement. RDS suits reducing administrative overhead for standard relational workloads, not migrations where full OS control is mandated.
- ✗
Refactor the application to run on Amazon ECS using Docker containers.
Why it's wrong here
ECS with Docker abstracts the host, so the company loses the operating system control its compliance mandate requires, and containerising .NET demands rework. ECS suits modernising applications for elastic, container-based scaling, not migrations demanding full OS-level control.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This SAP-C02 question is part of Courseiva's 984-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This SAP-C02 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Amazon Web Services certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the SAP-C02 exam.