An organization currently using tape backups takes one full backup weekly and incremental backups daily.
They recently augmented their tape backup procedures with a backup-to-disk solution. This is appropriate
because:

A.
fast synthetic backups for offsite storage are supported.

B.
backup to disk is always significantly faster than backup to tape.

C.
tape libraries are no longer needed.

D.
data storage on disks is more reliable than on tapes.

Explanation:
Disk-to-disk (D2D) backup should not be seen as a direct replacement for backup to tape; rather, it should be
viewed as part of a multitiered backup architecture that takes advantage of the best features of both tape and
disk technologies. Backups to disks are not dramatically faster than backups to tapes in a balanced
environment. Most often than not there is hardly a difference, since the limiting components are not tape or disk
drives but the overall sustained bandwidth of the backup server’s backplane. The advantage in terms of speed
is in restoring performance, since all data are on hand and can be accessed randomly, resulting in a dramatic
enhancement in throughput. This makes fast synthetic backups (making a full backup without touching the
host’s data only by using the existing incremental backups) efficient and easy. Although the cost of disks has
been reduced, tape-based backup can offer an overall cost advantage over disk-only solutions. Even if RAID
arrays are used for D2Dstorage, a failed drive must be swapped out and the RAID set rebuilt before another
disk drive fails, thus making this kind of backup more risky and not suitable as a solution of last resort. In
contrast, a single tape drive failure does not produceany data loss since the data resides on the tape media. In
a multidrive library, the loss of the use of a single tape drive has no impact on the overall level of data
protection. Conversely, the loss of a disk drive in an array can put all data at ri