A company is planning to modernize a legacy Java application that runs on a single on-premises server. The application uses a proprietary file-based storage system. The company wants to migrate to AWS with the following goals: reduce operational overhead, improve availability, and minimize code changes. Which TWO strategies should the company use? (Choose two.)
Trap 1: Migrate the proprietary storage to Amazon S3
S3 is object storage, not suitable as a direct replacement for file-based or relational storage.
Trap 2: Migrate the proprietary storage to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
Migrating proprietary file-based storage to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL is not a valid strategy because it requires rewriting the application to use JDBC/SQL, contradicting the goal of minimizing code changes. Additionally, file-based storage is not suited for relational databases.
Trap 3: Refactor the application into microservices and deploy on Amazon EKS
Refactoring to microservices requires significant code changes, not minimal.
- A
Use AWS Application Migration Service (MGN) to migrate the application server to Amazon EC2
MGN automates migration with minimal code changes.
- B
Use Amazon EFS to replace the proprietary file-based storage
EFS provides a managed, highly available file system.
- C
Migrate the proprietary storage to Amazon S3
Why wrong: S3 is object storage, not suitable as a direct replacement for file-based or relational storage.
- D
Migrate the proprietary storage to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
Why wrong: Migrating proprietary file-based storage to Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL is not a valid strategy because it requires rewriting the application to use JDBC/SQL, contradicting the goal of minimizing code changes. Additionally, file-based storage is not suited for relational databases.
- E
Refactor the application into microservices and deploy on Amazon EKS
Why wrong: Refactoring to microservices requires significant code changes, not minimal.