Due to cost and implementation time pressures, a security architect has allowed a NAS to be used instead of a SAN for a non-critical, low volume database. Which of the following would make a NAS…

NAS operates at the file level using protocols such as NFS or SMB, which add protocol overhead and lack the granular block-level I/O control that high-performance transactional databases require for efficient and consistent operation.

Zoning and LUN security are SAN-specific storage access controls - their absence from NAS is a limitation but not a factor that makes NAS actively unsuitable in the same way that file-level transfer, broadcast storms, and latency do.

Block-level transfer is a capability of SAN that NAS lacks - it is an advantage of SAN, not a risk factor associated with NAS itself.

Multipath is a SAN redundancy feature that NAS does not natively support, but its absence is subsumed by the broader latency and availability concerns rather than being a distinct unsuitability factor.

NAS runs over standard Ethernet networks, which are susceptible to broadcast storms that can severely degrade or completely disrupt network availability, undermining the high availability requirement for a business-critical database.

File-level encryption is a security enhancement that can be applied to NAS and is not a factor that makes NAS unsuitable for high-volume critical databases.

Ethernet-based NAS introduces significantly higher and less predictable latency than Fibre Channel SAN, which is unacceptable for high-volume databases that depend on consistent, low-latency I/O to meet performance and data availability requirements.