Hi Karl, thanks for your KIP. I'm curious to know if, in your experience (or anyone else's), this is something that actually happens.
I'd imagine it is pretty uncommon to configure topics to have RF > number of racks, however KIP-36 does call out this possibility. In my view, it kinda defeats the purpose of having racks/AZs in the first place, but maybe this is something that does happens and I'm just unaware of. cheers, From: [email protected] At: 03/05/26 08:40:12 UTC-5:00To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1290: Rack-Aware Minimum In-Sync Replicas Hi, I haven't had any replies on this so just bumping. I've got a patch that I've tested. Thanks Karl ________________________________ From: Karl Sorensen <[email protected]> Sent: 25 February 2026 11:27 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-1290: Rack-Aware Minimum In-Sync Replicas Hi, I'd like to start a discussion about KIP-1290 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/ao48G This proposes adding a new config min.insync.racks to ensure producers write to replicas spread across multiple racks. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Karl
