Failures in distributed vs. centralized databases: Is each node in a distributed system subject to the same failure types as a centralized system (plus additional inter-site risks)?

Introduction / Context:
Understanding failure modes is essential for resilient database design. Distributed systems inherit all single-node risks and add new ones from distribution.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Centralized failures include hardware faults, OS crashes, power loss, and data corruption.
• Distributed systems also experience network partitions, inter-site latency spikes, and split-brain scenarios.
• Each node is still a computer subject to ordinary failures.

Concept / Approach:
A distributed system is a collection of nodes; each node has the same baseline failure profile as a standalone server. Distribution introduces additional failure classes rather than removing existing ones. Hence, per-node risks mirror centralized systems.

Step-by-Step Solution:
List local failure types (disk, CPU, memory, OS, process).Add distributed-specific risks (network partition, consensus failure, clock skew).Recognize that node-level failure equivalence holds; distribution adds complexity.Conclude the statement is accurate.

Verification / Alternative check:
Fault models (fail-stop, Byzantine) and CAP discussions highlight additional risks, not fewer.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Distribution does not immunize nodes from common failures; it complicates recovery and coordination.

Common Pitfalls:
Neglecting network partition testing and cross-site failover procedures; assuming RAID or replication prevents all data loss.

Final Answer:
Applies — nodes face similar local failures; distribution adds network/site risks