Which continuity plan strategy involves maintaining a production site and an active backup site that can take over as primary when needed?

Which continuity plan strategy involves maintaining a production site and an active backup site that can take over as primary when needed?

• A. Contingency model
• B. Active backup model
• C. Split operations model
• D. Alternative site mode

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is keeping a backup site in an active, ready-to-take-over state so operations can switch to it with little or no downtime. This active backup model, often called a hot standby approach, ensures the backup site runs alongside the production site and stays synchronized so it can immediately assume the primary role when needed. That readiness minimizes recovery time and reduces data loss, which is critical for high-availability requirements. This setup differs from other strategies where the backup site isn’t constantly ready to go. A contingency approach focuses more on planning and response rather than maintaining a live, fully operational backup. Splitting operations across locations without designating one as immediately primed to take over doesn’t guarantee seamless handover of all systems. Using an alternate site only when disaster strikes implies a non-active standby, which can introduce longer outages.

The key idea here is keeping a backup site in an active, ready-to-take-over state so operations can switch to it with little or no downtime. This active backup model, often called a hot standby approach, ensures the backup site runs alongside the production site and stays synchronized so it can immediately assume the primary role when needed. That readiness minimizes recovery time and reduces data loss, which is critical for high-availability requirements.

This setup differs from other strategies where the backup site isn’t constantly ready to go. A contingency approach focuses more on planning and response rather than maintaining a live, fully operational backup. Splitting operations across locations without designating one as immediately primed to take over doesn’t guarantee seamless handover of all systems. Using an alternate site only when disaster strikes implies a non-active standby, which can introduce longer outages.