Which of the following would be the MOST cost-effective recovery solution for a company's lower-priority applications?
Which of the following would be the MOST cost-effective recovery solution for a company's lower-priority applications?
A cold site is the most cost-effective recovery solution for lower-priority applications. It provides basic infrastructure like power and cooling without the real-time data replication and immediate failover capabilities found in more expensive options like warm or hot sites. While the setup can take longer and result in extended downtime, this is an acceptable trade-off when dealing with lower-priority applications where budget constraints are significant. The costs are minimized since active maintenance and real-time synchronization are not necessary.
The most cost-effective so why shouldn't it be Cold Site. D
Because you're still having to pay rent on a building for a cold site. A cloud site is usually only paid for by the amount of resources; if you have VMs ready to go but not spun up, it's not costing you anything until you turn them on.
A cold site is a building with nothing in it. You need to either purchase the building or pay rent for the building, which costs money. Additionally, if you want to backup your lower-priority applications, you still need hardware and individuals to run and maintain those applications, which costs even more money. All other answers except for cloud site have the same problems. A cloud site allows you to migrate the applications into the cloud, and you either pay a flat fee or pay for what resources you use. Thus, a cloud site is the best answer.
With cloud, you only pay for what you use. There is no overhead for rent or utilities that would come with a cold site. You could create an entire datacenter in a cloud environment but if none of your vm's are spun up, you're not paying for them which makes the cloud option the most cost effective.
My answer should have said B
Look, with that logic there is no need for cold, warm or hot. Everything can be cloud from non-critical to critical with high RPO to high RTO. But understand that these exams tries to give purpose to each. So, non-critical they probably expect cold-site as the answer. Do not worry about the rent. Just focus on non-critical. I know, it is a stupid question.
to me the question said, MOST cost-effective RECOVERY solution, not MOST cost-effective solution.
Comptia word for word: For many companies, the most cost-effective solution is to move processing and data storage to a cloud site. A cloud operator should be able to maintain hot site redundancy so that a disaster in one geographic area will not disrupt service, because the cloud will be supported by a datacenter in a different region.
D. Cold site A cold site is the most cost-effective recovery solution for lower-priority applications. Cold sites are disaster recovery sites that are minimally equipped and lack the real-time data replication and immediate failover capabilities of more expensive options like hot sites and cloud sites. In a cold site, you have the physical infrastructure (data center space, power, cooling, and basic hardware) available, but it is not continuously running in sync with your primary data center. The equipment is powered off, and the data may not be up to date. In the event of a disaster, you would need to procure and install the necessary hardware and restore data from backups. This process can take longer and may result in a longer recovery time compared to hot or cloud sites. However, for lower-priority applications where extended downtime is acceptable and budget constraints are a significant concern, a cold site provides a cost-effective option to have some level of disaster recovery readiness without the expense of maintaining real-time replication or high availability.
According to co-pilot (which used Comptia.org as a source) the answer is cold site.
You are handling applications & it needs to be cost effective for getting users back Online, time can be money. It is not cost effective to make your users wait too long for recovery with a cold site & a cloud site costs compute time. Allows for the creation of a recovery version of an organization's enterprise network in the cloud. It is not a full recovery, & there may be no building for you to move your operations into, this is a virtual recovery site that allows your organization to rebuild it's network through a recovery version. If disaster strikes, you can move your organization to telework operations by accessing the cloud site which will still cost you for it's run time.
Cloud is the answer
I'm voting B on this.
its cost-efficient recovery
This is a very open cold Site. Because it says lower-priority here
Its Cloud
D. Cold site. Lower priority means no time pressure, you can buy the equipment needed and set it up in your cold site.
chat gtp said cloud site becaue its more coast effective then setting up and buying hardware for low poriorty data
the answer would indeed be "B. Cloud site." Cloud-based solutions are often the most cost-effective recovery option for lower-priority applications because they offer scalability and cost savings through on-demand resource allocation. This allows you to pay only for the resources you need when a disaster occurs, making it a cost-effective choice for applications.
A warm site would not have any applications backed up so it must be cloud
cloud is the chapest, think of virtual vs a physical place
MOST cost-effective recovery solution - this is the most important part