Definition check: Are databases stored at multiple locations without any interconnecting network still considered “distributed databases”, or does distribution imply networked coordination among sites?

Introduction / Context:
Distributed databases coordinate a single logical database across multiple networked sites. This question tests whether merely having databases in many places—without networking—meets the definition of “distributed.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Multiple computers store related data sets.
• No network connectivity or distributed DBMS services exist between them.
• Goal of distributed systems: transparency (location, fragmentation, replication) via coordinated software.

Concept / Approach:
Distribution implies coordination. A distributed DBMS provides a unified interface, concurrency control, and recovery across nodes. Physically separated but unconnected databases are simply independent databases, not parts of a distributed database. Tape/drive sneaker-net copies do not create distribution; they create replicas or backups without online coordination.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Run a cross-site transaction. If there is no facility for two-phase commit, distributed queries, or global catalogs, the environment is not a distributed database.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Marking “Correct” confuses geographic dispersion with distributed database architecture.
• Building location or portable media do not satisfy the defining characteristics.
• Replication may exist without exposing a single logical database, but true distributed DBMSs coordinate more than copies.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming offsite backups form a distributed DB; they do not provide distributed concurrency or transparency.

Final Answer:
Incorrect