Two file servers have run out of local disk space. The internal drives are at capacity and the company has traditionally only used local disks for storage. Which of the following is the MOST cost…

Installing fiber cards and adding direct attached storage typically involves per-server investments and doesn't inherently provide a shared storage solution easily accessible by both servers, potentially making it less cost-effective than shared NAS for multiple servers.

Implementing a SAN solution with fiber cards is significantly more complex and expensive than a NAS, requiring specialized hardware like Fibre Channel HBAs, switches, and a dedicated storage array, making it less cost-effective for simply adding storage to two file servers.

Attaching a USB drive to only one server does not address the storage needs of *both* servers and is generally not considered an enterprise-grade solution for shared, production file server storage due to reliability and scalability limitations.

Adding a NAS device provides shared network storage that both file servers can access using standard network protocols, offering a scalable and often more cost-effective solution than implementing a full Storage Area Network (SAN) or adding individual Direct Attached Storage (DAS) units per server. NAS devices are typically easier to deploy and manage, leveraging existing Ethernet infrastructure.