Why might a company choose active-passive disaster recovery over active-active across regions, despite active-active offering better RTO?
Active-active (serving live traffic from multiple regions simultaneously) generally offers the best RTO since failover is just rerouting traffic, but it requires solving multi-region data consistency, conflict resolution, and roughly doubles steady-state infrastructure cost. Active-passive (a warm or cold standby region that isn't serving live traffic) is simpler to reason about and cheaper to run day-to-day, accepting a slower failover (spinning up or promoting the standby) as the trade-off. Companies choose active-passive when their RTO requirements can tolerate that slower failover and the
Ready to master this question?
Generate a complete walkthrough — background, the full answer in plain language, a working code example explained line by line, a real-world scenario, common mistakes, and how this same question gets asked in different ways.
Sign in to generate a response