The most cost-effective so why shouldn't it be Cold Site. D

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.

According to co-pilot (which used Comptia.org as a source) the answer is cold site.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

they should have put rto and rpo time here so it was more clear to answer. Why AWS questions are better worded than COMPTIA it sucks.

Cheapest recovery solution for a company's --lower-priority applications--- Someone needs to catch monkey pox in the farthole for writing this.