In DR which is better option?

Question

Answer

It depends what “better” means. If you’re optimizing for ensuring business continuity and minimizing downtime in the event of a disaster or disruption. In disaster recovery, a hot site is fully operational that is immediately available so could be “best” but it comes at a higher cost in both dollars and architecture choices that may not fit the vision or mission at all.

When thinking about what these choices mean, some may think about multi-cloud as a balanced option. A good multi-cloud architecture does involve using multiple cloud service providers to distribute workloads, reduce dependence on a single provider, and improve resilience.

However, while it can provide an additional level of redundancy and fault tolerance, it does not fully eliminate the need for a hot site for DR. Even with a multi-cloud architecture, there is still a risk of a catastrophic event that affects all cloud providers or a significant portion of them. Architect carefully out there!

In DR which is better option?

Content you might like

If you had a magic wand - what's the #1 daily business challenge you'd eliminate?

If you use an air-gapped backup solution, would you say there are drawbacks?

What is the IT organization being asked to enable in the transition back to on-premise work? What is at the top of your agenda?

If you had to upgrade to Windows 11 manually, how long do you estimate it would take your team to complete the following capability check for: TPM (trusted platform module)