The correct answers are B and E .

The existing platform already runs on Kubernetes , so the fastest and most compatible migration path is to use Amazon EKS , which is AWS’s managed Kubernetes service. This preserves the application’s orchestration model and minimizes refactoring. Because the clusters must be highly available , EKS is a strong fit since it is designed to run Kubernetes workloads across multiple Availability Zones.

For shared storage, the on-premises application currently depends on a common NFS share that all containers can access. On AWS, the service that most closely matches this requirement is Amazon EFS , which provides a managed, elastic, shared file system that supports NFS access and can be mounted concurrently from multiple compute nodes. By contrast, Amazon EBS is block storage that is generally attached to a single instance and is not the right replacement for a shared multi-node NFS workload.

Therefore, B is correct because it moves the shared NFS data to Amazon EFS and stores the container images in Amazon ECR , which is the proper AWS managed registry for container images. E is correct because it runs the applications on Amazon EKS and uses Amazon EFS as the shared mounted file system across the Kubernetes worker nodes.

Option C is wrong because it uses ECS , not Kubernetes. Option D is wrong because EBS does not meet the requirement for a shared NFS-like file system across highly available Kubernetes nodes. Option A is wrong for the same storage reason.

So, the best migration combination is Amazon EFS + Amazon EKS , which makes B and E correct.