PAS-C01 Technology Practice Question
A company is running an SAP S/4HANA system on AWS. The SAP application is deployed on EC2 instances in a Multi-AZ setup with a shared /sapmnt directory using Amazon EFS. The database is running on Amazon RDS for SAP ASE. Performance monitoring reveals that the /sapmnt volume is experiencing high read latency during peak hours. Which action would most effectively reduce latency?
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
✓
Migrate /sapmnt to Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP.
Migrating /sapmnt to Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP provides a high-performance, low-latency shared file system that is fully supported for SAP S/4HANA. FSx for NetApp ONTAP offers consistent low-latency access and is optimized for SAP workloads. Option B (using Amazon ElastiCache for Redis) is not a file system solution and cannot replace the shared /sapmnt directory. Option C (increasing the provisioned throughput on the EFS file system) may improve performance but is less effective than using FSx, as EFS is a general-purpose file system with higher latency compared to FSx for NetApp ONTAP. Option D (increasing EC2 instance size) addresses compute capacity, not storage latency, and thus would not reduce read latency on the file system.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Migrate /sapmnt to Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP.
Why this is correct
Migrating /sapmnt to Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP provides a high-performance, low-latency shared file system optimized for SAP S/4HANA, effectively reducing read latency.
- ✗
Use Amazon ElastiCache for Redis to cache /sapmnt data.
Why it's wrong here
Amazon ElastiCache for Redis is an in-memory cache, not a file system. It cannot replace the shared /sapmnt directory required by SAP.
- ✗
Increase the provisioned throughput on the EFS file system.
Why it's wrong here
Increasing the provisioned throughput on the EFS file system may improve performance but is less effective than using FSx for NetApp ONTAP, as EFS has higher latency.
- ✗
Increase the size of the EC2 instances running SAP.
Why it's wrong here
Increasing EC2 instance size addresses compute capacity, not storage latency, and thus does not reduce read latency on the file system.
Quick reference
AWS S3 Storage Class Comparison
| Storage Class | Min Duration | Retrieval | Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3 Standard | None | Immediate | Frequently accessed data |
| S3 Standard-IA | 30 days | Immediate | Infrequent access, rapid retrieval |
| S3 One Zone-IA | 30 days | Immediate | Non-critical infrequent data |
| S3 Intelligent-Tiering | None | Immediate–hours | Unknown or changing access patterns |
| S3 Glacier Instant | 90 days | Milliseconds | Archive with instant retrieval |
| S3 Glacier Flexible | 90 days | Minutes–hours | Archive, flexible retrieval |
| S3 Glacier Deep Archive | 180 days | Hours | Long-term compliance archive |
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This PAS-C01 question is part of Courseiva's 1,616-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 PAS-C01 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 PAS-C01 exam.