You have an application that requires a shared file system. Which OCI service would you choose?

Petros O.Jun 22, 2026

File Storage is your answer, C, full stop. It gives you an NFS-based shared file system that multiple compute instances can mount concurrently, which is exactly what "shared file system" means on that exam, none of the other options give you concurrent multi-instance mount access the way NFS does.

Lena V.Jun 11, 2026

I almost went with Block Volume because "shared" made me think persistent attached storage, but Block Volume is single-instance only, you cannot mount it across multiple compute nodes simultaneously. File Storage is the OCI NFS-based service built exactly for concurrent multi-client access, which is the definition of a shared file system.

Imani T.Jun 27, 2026

File Storage is the right pick here, full stop, and the key word in the question is "shared" because that is what NFS-based File Storage actually gives you, concurrent access from multiple compute instances at the same time. Block Volume trips people up because it sounds like a general-purpose disk, and it is, but you cannot mount a single Block Volume to more than one instance simultaneously in a standard RW setup, so the moment your app needs more than one node reading and writing the same files, Block Volume falls apart. Object Storage is tempting if you have ever used S3-style solutions as a shared store, but Object Storage is HTTP API access, not a mounted file system, so anything expecting a POSIX file path is going to have a bad day. Archive Storage is not even close, that is cold storage for data you almost never touch, not something you hang an active application on.