An organization stores file archives on a single network device and has not tested data recoverability in several months. Management seeks a strategy that lessens the effect of hardware errors or sabotage. Which approach is the most appropriate for meeting these goals?
Maintain a synchronized mirror on the same on-premises device to avoid separate infrastructure costs
Retain data in a standalone offsite container and conduct periodic recovery exercises
Enroll in a third-party remote service that creates daily copies emphasizing data redundancy over restoration practices
Keep separate copies at multiple locations and regularly test their recovery processes
Maintaining multiple copies across multiple locations and verifying them periodically mitigates both device failures and malicious actions. A real-time mirror on the same device remains vulnerable if that device fails. A single offsite option with limited testing does not address issues if it becomes inaccessible or if corruption goes undetected. Meanwhile, a remote arrangement that prioritizes redundancy over regular restoration checks may lead to untested assumptions that fail during a genuine emergency.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
Why is storing copies at multiple locations preferred over a single on-premises mirror?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the importance of regular recovery testing?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does data redundancy differ from recovery readiness?