A company needs a disaster recovery plan for its primary on-premises file storage volume. The volume is mounted from an Internet Small Computer Systems Interface (iSCSI) device on a local storage server and holds hundreds of terabytes of data. The company requires that end users retain immediate access to all file types from on-premises systems without added latency, and wants the LEAST change to existing infrastructure. Which solution meets these requirements?

The correct option uses AWS Storage Gateway Volume Gateway in stored mode. This mode stores all data on-premises while asynchronously backing it up to Amazon S3 as EBS snapshots. This meets the requirement for immediate, low-latency access from on-premises systems and minimal infrastructure changes, as it continues to use iSCSI. In a disaster, an EBS snapshot can be restored to an EBS volume and attached to an EC2 instance, providing a recovery path. The incorrect options are unsuitable because: S3 File Gateway requires modifying applications to use NFS, which is a significant infrastructure change and doesn't maintain the existing iSCSI protocol. Tape Gateway is designed for archival backups, not for immediate, low-latency access to active data, and recovery involves restoring from virtual tapes, which can be slow. Volume Gateway cached volume stores primary data in S3 and caches frequently accessed data locally. While it uses iSCSI, the requirement for all file types to have immediate access without added latency is better met by the stored volume, which keeps all data on-premises.