Within the database infrastructures of large-scale enterprises and government organizations, preserving swift and dependable disaster recovery processes continues to be particularly challenging with increasing data volumes and greater complexity in systems. This study conducts an evaluative analysis of advanced failover and backup methods, comparing traditional cold standby models to multi-region, transaction-aware replication architectures. Controlled fault injection across OLTP and OLAP systems yielded results showing 64% reduction in average Recovery Time Objective (RTO) from 430 seconds to 155 seconds. Under write-heavy workloads, RPO drift was improved by over 70%; decreasing from 8.1 seconds in legacy systems to 2.3 seconds in the systems with adaptive replicas. There was also an improvement of 19% in the success rate of transaction rollbacks, whereas predictive failure detection reached 91% accuracy in forecasting excessive write queue formation. Additionally, the study demonstrates a reduction in cost-efficiency of modern architecture, showcasing a 47% decline in recovery cost per gigabyte of restored data. These results purposefully outline the significant operational and technical benefits accompanying the implementation of software-defined disaster recovery techniques within high-availability environments.
2016 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE; 2016.
2.
Salinas T, C.
3.
Zamanian E, Yu X, Stonebraker M, Kraska T. Rethinking database high availability with RDMA networks.
4.
Kambatla K, Kollias G, Kumar V, Grama A. Trends in big data analytics. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing. 2014;74(7):2561–73.
5.
Gutta L. A Systematic Review of Cloud Architectural Approaches for Optimizing Total Cost of Ownership and Resource Utilization While Enabling High Service Availability and Rapid Elasticity. International Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. 2024;(1):1–20.
6.
Ford D, Labelle F, Popovici F, Stokely M, Truong V, Barroso L, et al. Availability in globally distributed storage systems. 2010;(10).
7.
Xing L. Cascading Failures in Internet of Things: Review and Perspectives on Reliability and Resilience. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2021;8(1):44–64.
8.
Asghar T, Rasool S, Iqbal M, Qayyum Z ul, Mian AN, Ubakanma G. Feasibility of Serverless Cloud Services for Disaster Management Information Systems. 2018 IEEE 20th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 16th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 4th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS). IEEE; 2018. p. 1054–7.
9.
Islam MdA, Vrbsky SV. Transaction management with tree-based consistency in cloud databases. International Journal of Cloud Computing. 2017;6(1):58.
10.
Pearson S, Benameur A. Privacy, Security and Trust Issues Arising from Cloud Computing. 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology and Science. IEEE; 2010. p. 693–702.
11.
Brewer E. CAP twelve years later: How the “rules” have changed. Computer. 2012;45(2):23–9.
12.
Lamport L. The part-time parliament. Concurrency: the Works of Leslie Lamport. Association for Computing Machinery; 2019.
13.
Kossmann D, Kraska T, Loesing S. An evaluation of alternative architectures for transaction processing in the cloud. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data. ACM; 2010. p. 579–90.
14.
Mohan C, Haderle D, Lindsay B, Pirahesh H, Schwarz P. ARIES. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 1992;17(1):94–162.
15.
Abualkishik A, Alwan A, Gulzar Y. Disaster recovery in cloud computing systems: An overview. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 2020;(9).
16.
Bernstein D. Containers and cloud: From lxc to docker to kubernetes. IEEE cloud computing. 2014;81–4.
17.
Schwartz P, Solove D. The PII problem: Privacy and a new concept of personally identifiable information. NYUL rev. 2011;1814.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
