When designing resilient solutions using availability zones and regions, what is the primary purpose of deploying across multiple availability zones?

Question

Options

• ATo comply with international data protection laws
• BTo reduce the cost of the solution
• CTo ensure the solution survives the outage of a single zone
• DTo decrease the solution's overall performance for simplicity

• A
  4% (1)
• B
  13% (3)
• C
  78% (18)
• D
  4% (1)

Explanation

Deploying across multiple availability zones (AZs) is fundamentally about fault isolation - if one zone experiences an outage (power failure, network issue, hardware disaster), workloads continue running in the remaining zones without interruption. This is the core principle of high availability design: no single point of failure should take down your entire system.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong because data residency laws are addressed by region selection, not multi-AZ deployment - compliance concerns where data lives geographically, not redundancy within a location.
• B is wrong because multi-AZ deployments typically increase costs due to redundant infrastructure, mirrored storage, and data transfer between zones.
• D is wrong and internally contradictory - the goal is resilience and maintained performance, not degraded performance; simplicity would actually favor fewer zones.

Memory tip: Think of AZs like backup generators in the same building complex - if one generator fails, the others keep the lights on. Regions are different cities; AZs are different buildings in the same city. Multi-AZ = survive a building failure. Multi-region = survive a city-wide disaster.

No community discussion yet for this question.