Compare DFS Replication (DFSR) with the legacy File Replication Service (FRS).

Compare DFS Replication (DFSR) with the legacy File Replication Service (FRS).

• A. DFSR uses remote differential compression and is more bandwidth-efficient; FRS is older and less efficient and is deprecated in favor of DFSR.
• B. FRS is more bandwidth efficient.
• C. DFSR ignores partial changes.
• D. FRS is recommended over DFSR.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is how data is transferred during replication. DFSR uses remote differential compression, which means it sends only the portions of a file that have changed, rather than the whole file. This makes replication much more bandwidth-efficient, especially for large files or frequent updates. FRS, the older method, replicated entire files, which wastes bandwidth and is slower in many scenarios. Because of these limitations, FRS has been deprecated in favor of DFSR in modern Windows Server versions. So the best answer highlights that DFSR uses remote differential compression and is more bandwidth-efficient, while FRS is older, less efficient, and deprecated. The other statements conflict with how DFSR works or with the deprecation status of FRS.

The main idea is how data is transferred during replication. DFSR uses remote differential compression, which means it sends only the portions of a file that have changed, rather than the whole file. This makes replication much more bandwidth-efficient, especially for large files or frequent updates. FRS, the older method, replicated entire files, which wastes bandwidth and is slower in many scenarios. Because of these limitations, FRS has been deprecated in favor of DFSR in modern Windows Server versions. So the best answer highlights that DFSR uses remote differential compression and is more bandwidth-efficient, while FRS is older, less efficient, and deprecated. The other statements conflict with how DFSR works or with the deprecation status of FRS.