A data-heavy application runs on hundreds of EC2 instances and currently uses a shared file system hosted on several EC2 instances containing 200 TB of data. A monthly job runs once per month, reads a subset of files, runs about 72 hours, and the compute instances scale in an Auto Scaling group. The shared file system EC2 hosts are always running. All resources are in the same Region. You need to replace the shared file system servers to reduce cost while ensuring high-performance access for the 72-hour job. Which option yields the LARGEST overall cost reduction while meeting the needs?

The correct option provides the largest cost reduction because it leverages S3 Intelligent-Tiering for cost-effective storage of infrequently accessed data, automatically moving it between access tiers. FSx for Lustre is then used on-demand for high-performance access during the 72-hour job, with lazy loading from S3 minimizing the data transferred to FSx and reducing costs. Deleting the FSx file system after the job eliminates ongoing costs. Incorrect options: EBS Multi-Attach is not suitable for 200TB of data due to volume size limits and the complexity of managing a single volume across hundreds of instances, leading to high costs and potential performance bottlenecks. Batch loading all 200TB into FSx for Lustre from S3 Standard would incur significant data transfer costs and take a long time, increasing the overall operational cost and job preparation time compared to lazy loading. AWS Storage Gateway is designed for hybrid cloud storage and is not optimized for high-performance, temporary access to 200TB of data for a compute-intensive job, making it less cost-effective and performant than FSx for Lustre.