In distributed databases, maintaining a full copy of the database at two or more sites (replication) is commonly used both for data distribution and for fault tolerance. Is this statement accurate?

Introduction / Context:
This question checks understanding of why organizations keep complete copies of a database at multiple sites. The practice is known as replication and it supports both geographic distribution (placing data close to users) and fault tolerance (surviving node or site failures).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Two or more independent sites (nodes) exist.
• Each site stores a full copy of the database (not just a partition).
• A replication mechanism keeps copies reasonably consistent.

Concept / Approach:
Replication provides redundancy and local read access. When a site fails, clients can redirect to another site that holds a complete copy. When demand is global, placing replicas near users reduces latency. Consistency is managed via synchronous or asynchronous techniques depending on requirements.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify that multiple complete copies across sites = replication.Relate replication to distribution: users can read from the nearest replica.Relate replication to fault tolerance: if one site fails, another replica serves requests.Conclude the statement is accurate.

Verification / Alternative check:
High-availability architectures (active–active or active–standby) rely on multi-site replication for low RTO/RPO targets.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Claiming replication is rare or only for special topologies ignores mainstream HA/DR patterns. Shared storage is not required; replicas often use independent storage for failure isolation.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing sharding (partitioning) with replication (copying). Assuming replication guarantees zero data loss without considering sync mode and commit policies.

Final Answer:
Applies — replication at multiple sites is a common strategy for both goals