What is the most correct choice below when talking about the steps to resume normal operation at the primary site after the green light has been given by the salvage team?

Question

Options

• AThe most critical operations are moved from alternate site to primary site before others
• BOperation may be carried by a completely different team than disaster recovery team
• CThe least critical functions should be moved back first
• DYou moves items back in the same order as the categories document in your plan or exactly

• A
  6% (2)
• C
  91% (29)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

When returning to the primary site after a disaster, least critical functions are moved back first (C) because this acts as a validation step - if residual problems exist at the primary site that the salvage team missed, you've only disrupted low-stakes operations while your mission-critical systems remain safely running at the alternate site. Option A is the opposite of best practice: moving critical operations back first maximizes risk exposure if the primary site fails again. Option B is wrong because the disaster recovery team must remain involved in the return process, as they hold the institutional knowledge, documentation, and procedures to execute the transition safely - handing it to an unfamiliar team invites errors. Option D is a trap: your DR plan documents systems in order of criticality for failover (most critical first), but the return migration reverses that order, so following the plan "exactly" in the same sequence would be incorrect.

Memory tip: Think "reverse the disaster." During the disaster you protected the most critical things first; coming home, you send the least important ahead to test the road before the VIPs travel it.

No community discussion yet for this question.