0 votes
in AWS by
A weather forecasting company comes up with the requirement of building a high-performance, highly parallel POSIX-compliant file system that stores data across multiple network file systems to serve thousands of simultaneous clients, driving millions of IOPS (Input/Output Operations per Second) with sub-millisecond latency. The company needs a cost-optimized file system storage for short-term, processing-heavy workloads that can provide burst throughput to meet this requirement.

What type of file systems storage will suit the company in the best way?

A. FSx for Lustre with Deployment Type as Scratch File System

B. FSx for Lustre with Deployment Type as Persistent file systems

C. Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS)

D. Amazon FSx for Windows File Server

1 Answer

0 votes
by

A. FSx for Lustre with Deployment Type as Scratch File System

Explanation

File system deployment options for FSx for Lustre:

Amazon FSx for Lustre provides two file system deployment options: scratch and persistent.

Both deployment options support solid-state drive (SSD) storage. However, hard disk drive (HDD) storage is supported only in one of the persistent deployment types.

You choose the file system deployment type when you create a new file system using the AWS Management Console, the AWS Command Line Interface (AWS CLI), or the Amazon FSx for Lustre API.

Option A is CORRECT because FSx for Lustre with Deployment Type as Scratch File System is designed for temporary storage and shorter-term data processing. Data isn’t replicated and doesn’t persist if a file server fails. Scratch file systems provide high burst throughput of up to six times the baseline throughput of 200 MBps per TiB storage capacity.

Option B is incorrect because FSx for Lustre with Deployment Type as Persistent file systems are designed for longer-term storage and workloads. The file servers are highly available, and data is automatically replicated within the same Availability Zone in which the file system is located. The data volumes attached to the file servers are replicated independently from the file servers to which they are attached.

Option C is incorrect because Amazon EFS is not as effective as Amazon FSx for Luster when it comes to HPC design to deliver millions of IOPS (Input/Output Operations per Second) with sub-millisecond latency.

Option D is incorrect. The storage requirement here is for POSIX-compliant file systems to support Linux-based workloads. Hence Amazon FSx for Windows File Server is not suitable here.

Related questions

+1 vote
asked Sep 4, 2022 in AWS by Robindeniel
0 votes
asked Aug 31, 2022 in AWS by sharadyadav1986
...