Hi Hector, Thanks for your comment.
In my experience, I've managed a few 2 rack/location clusters where the RF was big enough to cover a site failure + 1 down node on the remaining site which leads to a some pretty big RF The only way to guarantee site resilient data is to either do manual placement or set the RF to be number of brokers in a rack + 1 To be fair I don't think i've ever seen replica placement issues to make it necessary but i've managed clusters in places where they were really worried about data loss. This KIP is intended to allow you to set a sensible RF and still have a deterministic guarantee that writes span multiple racks Karl ________________________________ From: Hector Geraldino (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A) <[email protected]> Sent: 05 March 2026 15:36 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1290: Rack-Aware Minimum In-Sync Replicas 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
