The sands are indeed shifting in terms of Disaster Recovery (DR) and David Honour raises some very interesting suggestions here as to what is challenging the status quo…
The main thrust is coming from those who believe that business continuity is best achieved by focussing on the resiliency of existing processes and infrastructure rather than the restoration of these after an incident. Focussing on technology and compute resources, we have seen a plethora of sophisticated solutions that meet very demanding DR requirements.
Very often, these are inextricably linked to virtualisation, thus exacerbating the costs savings, ease of management and all the other good things that come out of these types of deployments. But it has always amazed me that IT shops would rather rapidly (whatever the individual definition of rapidly might be) recover from failure situations than prevent them in the first place.
It’s a bit like going out and buying an insurance policy just after you have totalled your car. It doesn’t really work and aren’t you being a tad disingenuous by adopting this approach?