When considering the design of solutions that can survive the outage of an entire cloud provider, which strategy is essential?

Question

Options

• ARelying on a single cloud provider for all components of the solution
• BDesigning for multi-cloud redundancy and interoperability
• CUsing hard-coded IP addresses to ensure stable connections
• DAvoiding the use of cloud-native services to prevent vendor lock-in

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  76% (29)
• C
  16% (6)
• D
  5% (2)

Explanation

Multi-cloud redundancy (B) is the correct strategy because surviving a full cloud provider outage requires your workloads to run across independent providers - if one goes down entirely, traffic shifts to another with no single point of failure.

Why the distractors fail:

• A is the opposite of resilience - a single provider is the exact failure domain you're trying to survive.
• C hard-coded IPs create fragility, not stability; IPs change during failover and across providers, breaking connectivity.
• D is a misapplication of "avoid vendor lock-in" - avoiding cloud-native services limits capability without actually guaranteeing portability, and abstraction alone doesn't protect against an outage.

Memory tip: Think of it as the "never put all eggs in one basket" rule - Multi = Multiple providers = Survival. If the question mentions surviving a full provider outage, the answer always points toward distributing across independent clouds.

No community discussion yet for this question.