A company uses locally attached storage for a latency-sensitive application on premises and is performing a lift-and-shift migration to AWS without changing the application architecture. Which solution meets these requirements MOST cost-effectively?

The most cost-effective solution for a latency-sensitive application migrating from locally attached storage to AWS without architectural changes is to use an Amazon EC2 instance with an Amazon EBS GP3 volume. GP3 volumes offer a good balance of performance and cost, providing a baseline of 3,000 IOPS and 125 MiB/s throughput independently of volume size, which can be provisioned higher for additional cost. This directly replaces local storage with a performant, block-level storage solution. Using an Auto Scaling group adds complexity and cost not explicitly required by the "lift-and-shift without changing architecture" constraint, as the original application likely ran on a single server. FSx for Lustre is a high-performance file system typically used for HPC workloads, which is overkill and more expensive for a general latency-sensitive application. FSx for OpenZFS is also a specialized, higher-cost file system, often used for migrating on-premises ZFS file servers. GP2 volumes are an older generation of EBS, offering lower baseline performance and higher costs for equivalent performance compared to GP3.