Option B best meets a highly resilient DR requirement with an RTO under 1 hour because a Multi-AZ deployment is designed to provide rapid recovery through redundancy across Availability Zones, rather than requiring a restore-and-rebuild process after a failure. A snapshot-based strategy (Option C) can be valuable for backup and regional recovery, but restoring a new cluster from snapshots is a heavier operation and is not the most reliable path to consistently achieving sub-hour RTO during real incidents. The study material highlights snapshot/restore as an operational mechanism for creating a new environment from a Redshift cluster’s saved state, which inherently implies a restore process and associated time to bring resources online.

Option D (cluster relocation) is primarily an operational move mechanism and is not the same as maintaining continuously resilient capacity for unplanned AZ-impacting events. Option A is not the best choice because Multi-AZ resiliency is aligned with modern Redshift architectures, and RA3 is the recommended node family for contemporary Redshift deployments where performance and managed storage characteristics are key for enterprise analytics. The study material reinforces Amazon Redshift as the platform for high-performance enterprise analytics, so a resilience-first configuration is appropriate.