A company plans to migrate its container-based website to AWS. The site uses microservices deployed on an on-premises, self-managed Kubernetes cluster. All Kubernetes manifests are stored in source control. The website data is in a PostgreSQL database. An open-source container image registry runs alongside the on-premises environment. Which AWS architecture will require the LEAST effort to migrate while preserving these details?

The correct answer is to create an Amazon EKS cluster with managed node groups, push container images to Amazon ECR, deploy existing manifests to EKS, and create an Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL DB cluster. This option requires the least effort because EKS is a managed Kubernetes service, allowing direct reuse of the existing Kubernetes manifests with minimal changes. Migrating images to ECR is standard practice for containerized applications on AWS. Aurora PostgreSQL is a highly compatible and scalable managed database service. Creating an AWS App Runner service is incorrect because App Runner is designed for simpler web applications and might not fully support complex microservice architectures or direct deployment of existing Kubernetes manifests. Creating an Amazon ECS cluster is incorrect because ECS uses its own task definitions and service configurations, which would require significant re-engineering and translation of the existing Kubernetes manifests, increasing migration effort. Recreating the on-premises Kubernetes cluster on EC2 instances is incorrect because it involves self-managing the Kubernetes control plane and the container registry, which is more effort than using managed services like EKS and ECR, and running an open-source PostgreSQL database on the cluster is not a managed solution.