You have a web application running on AWS. You want to minimize costs but can accept a longer recovery time after a disaster. Which disaster recovery strategy fits this need best?
Think about which strategy saves the most money but takes longer to get running again.
Backup and restore is the cheapest because resources are only used during backups. Recovery takes longer because systems must be rebuilt from backups.
You want a disaster recovery plan where a small version of your environment is always running to reduce recovery time. Which strategy is this?
Think about a small 'core' environment running continuously.
Pilot light keeps a minimal version of the environment running, so it can be quickly scaled up after a disaster.
Compare recovery times between warm standby and backup and restore disaster recovery strategies.
Consider which strategy keeps more resources running continuously.
Warm standby keeps a scaled-down environment running, so recovery is faster than rebuilding from backups.
To reduce risk of downtime and data loss, you want a disaster recovery strategy with a fully functional environment running at all times. Which is it?
Think about which strategy keeps a ready-to-use environment running continuously at full scale.
Multi-site active-active runs fully functional environments continuously in multiple regions, reducing downtime risk.
Your company requires near-zero downtime and data loss in case of disaster. Which AWS disaster recovery strategy best meets this requirement?
Consider which strategy runs full environments simultaneously in multiple locations.
Multi-site active-active runs full environments in multiple regions simultaneously, enabling near-zero downtime and data loss.