Joint Optimisation of Replication Cost, Recovery Time, and Recovery Point Objectives: A Multiobjective Simulation Study
Abstract
Replication design requires simultaneous decisions about infrastructure cost, recovery time, and allowable data loss, creating trade-offs that are poorly represented by single-objective sizing rules. We developed a multiobjective optimisation model that selected replication frequency, target tier, reserved bandwidth, and retention level for 1,200 simulated workload scenarios derived from enterprise demand profiles. Candidate solutions were evaluated against monthly cost, estimated recovery time, recovery-point exposure, and resource utilisation. Pareto optimisation identified solution sets that reduced median infrastructure cost by 14% relative to a conservative baseline while maintaining the same recovery constraints. In workloads with high write variability, small increases in reserved bandwidth produced larger reductions in recovery-point exposure than equivalent spending on higher storage tiers. Conversely, low-change workloads benefited more from retention and target-tier adjustments. Sensitivity analysis showed that the preferred configuration changed materially when downtime cost was included as a business penalty. The study demonstrates the value of presenting recovery architecture as a set of explicit trade-offs rather than a single recommended configuration. Multiobjective models can support transparent investment decisions when technical and financial priorities are specified in advance.
References
1. Nazir M. RTO and RPO optimization using asynchronous replication in multi-petabyte enterprise storage environments. Journal of Computing, Intelligence and Information Sciences. 2021. Available from: https://jciis.com/index.php/jciis/article/view/2020-01-04
2. Nazir M. Automated SnapMirror migration from on-premises storage to Cloud Volumes ONTAP: a replication performance study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Integrated Sciences. 2022;2(1). Available from: https://jmris.com/index.php/jmris/article/view/2022V1P6
3. Nazir M. Performance comparison of AWS EBS, EFS and S3 for enterprise cloud-storage workloads. International Journal of Business & Computational Sciences. 2022;2(1). Available from: https://ijbcs.org/index.php/IJBCS/article/view/2022-01-05
4. Patterson RH, Manley S, Federwisch M, Hitz D, Kleiman S, Owara S. SnapMirror: file-system-based asynchronous mirroring for disaster recovery. In: Proceedings of the 1st USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies. 2002. p. 117-129. Available from: https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-02/snapmirror-file-system-based-asynchronous-mirroring-disaster-recovery
5. Cully B, Lefebvre G, Meyer D, Feeley M, Hutchinson N, Warfield A. Remus: high availability via asynchronous virtual machine replication. In: Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation. 2008. p. 161-174. Available from: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/nsdi08/tech/full_papers/cully/cully.pdf
6. Gray J, Lamport L. Consensus on transaction commit. ACM Trans Database Syst. 2006;31(1):133-160. doi:10.1145/1132863.1132867.
7. Gilbert S, Lynch N. Brewer's conjecture and the feasibility of consistent, available, partition-tolerant web services. ACM SIGACT News. 2002;33(2):51-59. doi:10.1145/564585.564601.
8. Ghemawat S, Gobioff H, Leung ST. The Google file system. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 2003. p. 29-43. doi:10.1145/945445.945450.
9. DeCandia G, Hastorun D, Jampani M, Kakulapati G, Lakshman A, Pilchin A, et al. Dynamo: Amazon's highly available key-value store. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 2007. p. 205-220. doi:10.1145/1294261.1294281.
10. Dean J, Barroso LA. The tail at scale. Commun ACM. 2013;56(2):74-80. doi:10.1145/2408776.2408794.
11. NetApp. Learn about ONTAP SnapMirror asynchronous disaster recovery [Internet]. [cited 2026 Sep 22]. Available from: https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/ontap/data-protection/snapmirror-disaster-recovery-concept.html
12. Swanson M, Bowen P, Phillips AW, Gallup D, Lynes D. Contingency planning guide for federal information systems. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2010;NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-34r1.
13. Grance T, Nolan T, Burke K, Dudley R, White G, Good T. Guide to test, training, and exercise programs for IT plans and capabilities. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2006;NIST SP 800-84. doi:10.6028/NIST.SP.800-84.
14. Lakens D. Sample size justification. Collabra Psychol. 2022;8(1):33267. doi:10.1525/collabra.33267.
15. Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2600-2606. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114.
16. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
17. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.
18. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7(1):1-26. doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright. Articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0) may be shared and adapted for any purpose, including commercially, provided appropriate credit is given, a link to the licence is supplied, and changes are indicated. No additional legal or technological restrictions may be imposed. Third-party material is included only where its credit line permits. Licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Earlier publications remain subject to their stated licence and author agreements unless the rights holder authorizes a change.
