A Windows content-management application runs on a single EC2 instance in development and stores static content on a 2 TB EBS root volume. For production, the app must run on at least three EC2 instances across multiple Availability Zones, be joined to Active Directory, use Windows ACLs for file access, and maintain exactly the same content on all running instances at any time. The solution should minimize management overhead. Which design meets these requirements with the least operational work?

The correct option leverages Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, which natively supports Windows ACLs, Active Directory integration, and SMB protocol, making it ideal for Windows-based applications requiring shared file storage. Its multi-AZ deployment ensures high availability and data consistency across instances. An Auto Scaling group with a user-data script automates instance provisioning, application installation, and domain joining, minimizing operational overhead. Incorrect options: Amazon EFS is a Linux-native file system and does not support Windows ACLs or the SMB protocol directly, making it unsuitable for this Windows application requirement. Amazon FSx for Lustre is a high-performance file system optimized for HPC workloads and does not natively support Windows ACLs or seamless Active Directory integration for Windows applications. Creating an AMI from the existing instance is a good practice, but the option still suggests EFS, which is not suitable for Windows ACLs.