Exam SY0-701 topic 1 question 50 discussion

Warm Sites ● Not fully equipped, but fundamentals in place ● Can be up and running within a few days ● Cheaper than hot sites but with a slight delay Cold Sites ● Fewer facilities than warm sites ● May be just an empty building, ready in 1-2 months ● Cost-effective but adds more recovery time

A warm site offers a balance between cost-effectiveness and recovery time objectives (RTO) and recovery point objectives (RPO). It typically has some pre-installed infrastructure and data backups but may require additional configuration and data restoration before becoming fully operational. Given the RTO and RPO values of around two days, a warm site provides a reasonable compromise between cost and recovery capability.

warm site

A cold site is the best option for the organization's requirements, balancing low cost with an acceptable two-day RTO and RPO, making it the most cost-effective solution.

A cold site is the most cost-effective option for a backup data center because it is essentially an empty facility with basic utilities (e.g., power, cooling, and connectivity) but no active hardware or pre-installed systems. Since the organization has an RTO (Recovery Time Objective) and RPO (Recovery Point Objective) of around two days, a cold site is suitable as it provides enough time to set up and restore operations while keeping costs low.

I think C is best answer. You can see line "cost-benefit as the PRIMARY requirement and RTO and RPO" on question.

A cold site is the most cost-effective option because it provides basic infrastructure, such as a physical space with power, cooling, and network connectivity, but it does not have active IT systems or pre-configured data.

Cold sites typically require time to set up the necessary systems, which aligns with the two-day RTO/RPO requirements. They are less expensive compared to hot or warm sites because they do not have pre-installed equipment or active data replication. A cold site provides the best balance between cost and the organization's relatively long RTO/RPO requirements (two days). A warm site has some infrastructure pre-configured and can be brought online faster than a cold site, but it is more expensive. This would be suitable for a scenario where RTO and RPO are shorter than two days, but it's overkill for this case.

Cost requirement is the "primary objective"

shiiii bro is gotta be d

I know it's warm site. But can I get an explanation way Real-time recovery is not a good option?

Cost-benefit doesn't mean the cheapest. What is more beneficial paying cheapest possible for a cold site, and taking possible weeks to get it up and running or paying mid-range for a warm site that can be brought online in hours to a couple of days?

A warm site strikes a balance between cost and recovery time. It typically has hardware and connectivity set up, but systems and data may not be fully up-to-date. This setup allows the organization to recover within the specified RTO and RPO of around two days without the high costs associated with a hot site. gpt

A warm site offers a balance between cost-effectiveness and recovery speed. While it requires some setup and data restoration during a disaster, this can usually be accomplished within the two-day RTO and RPO window specified by the organization.

Getting cold sites operational is typically measured in weeks. Getting things up and running in 2 days would almost certainly be a warm site.

It is most certainly a warm site. With cost benefit being the primary objective, meaning the benefits should outweigh the cost, a warm site is the best option. With the cold site, you don't have any equipment or servers, nor you have any network connectivity and it might take a long time to switch that into a fully functional site that might exceed two days. While it might be the cheapest option, but it will certainly cost you a fortune if the business operations cannot be recovered back to normal within the required RPO and RTO range.

GPT!!!