In my opinion, using RMDBS as source of truth makes more sense, because these systems were optimised for reliability, durability & data retention. To be comple

In my opinion, using RMDBS as source of truth makes more sense, because these systems were optimised for reliability, durability & data retention. To be completely honest, some have drunk the proverbial Confluent koolaid, with kafka being the hammer to hit all nails. I just want to communicate the risks & tradeoffs with taking this approach. Problem is, the theory sort-of holds up, if configured correctly, kafka should be as reliable/durable as PG/SqlServer/MySQL cluster. But I can't find any material on companies experience running kafka this way, I.e. 'we ran this setup for a year in prod, one of our brokers disks got corrupted, but we were able to get back with no data loss, via X,Y,Z.' or 'we couldn't recover and had to accept data loss'. EDIT: in short, are the claims made by this article reliable: https://www.confluent.io/blog/okay-store-data-apache-kafka/ https://www.confluent.io/blog/okay-store-data-apache-kafka/