Cases8 cases

7 to 8 of 8

1. IL-0211 A Mandrill PostgreSQL shard shut down at transaction ID wraparound and email sending was impaired for about 40 hours

   Mailchimp2019

   Symptoms

   From 05:35 UTC on 4 February 2019 Mandrill, Mailchimp's transactional email service, sent only 80% of queued emails, because one of its PostgreSQL shards, shard4, stopped accepting writes. When Mandrill engineers opened an investigation at 11:58 UTC, they saw a sharply elevated load on shard4.

   Writes rejectedThroughput degradationLoad imbalanceNode disk full

   Trigger

   At 05:35 UTC on 4 February the transaction ID counter of shard4, the busiest Mandrill PostgreSQL shard, reached its upper limit and PostgreSQL shut the database down to protect against wraparound.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   DatabasePostgreSQL vacuum

   Contributing factor

   Ignored early signalNo alert on limitSignal buried in noiseRetry stormMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   The first exception was logged overnight but was buried by unrelated exceptions in the centralized error reporting. Mandrill engineers opened an investigation at 11:58 UTC and, while looking for the source of the rising load on shard4, found the wraparound at 12:56 UTC.

   Remediation

   • Put shard4 into standalone mode and started VACUUM at 14:16 UTC on 4 February
   • Stopped and restarted the vacuum with settings that made it run faster
   • Started a dump and restore of the database without the Search and Url tables while the vacuum ran
   • Replaced storage volumes on the Mandrill app servers whose disks were filling with queued jobs and logs
   • Moved the job-queue tables from shard4 to other live shards
   • Truncated the Search and Url tables on the locked database at 19:12 UTC on 5 February, after which the vacuum finished in about an hour
   • Started sending from the backlog at 21:36 UTC
   • Added alerting for XID wraparound by 22:40 UTC

   Lessons

   Mailchimp named the factors that slowed its response: knowledge of and access to Mandrill systems and monitoring rested with a few people, Mandrill logging needed a locally writable disk, logs of malformed API requests were hard to separate from real application errors, job health was hard to see, and the disk space problem made partial deployments for triage risky. What helped was trained incident commanders with clear roles (incident commanders in 3-hour rotations, scribes, technical liaisons and points of contact between teams), periodic summaries with a list of recent and open decisions, and taking time in a video meeting to reassess, which led to the truncation. Running in the cloud let the team expand storage quickly, and the team was lucky that the largest table holding up the vacuum held data it could delete.

   View case
2. IL-0383 PagerDuty's shared Cassandra cluster degraded during a repair, delaying notifications and losing incoming events

   PagerDuty2014sev1

   Symptoms

   On 3 June 2014, PagerDuty's notification pipeline performed poorly and some notifications were delayed after the Cassandra cluster behind it became heavily degraded. About 3% of events sent to the integration API could not be received.

   Database overloadHigh error rateHigh latency

   Trigger

   On 3 June 2014 the Cassandra background repair process started its normal run on one node of the cluster while other high load was on the cluster; on 4 June the team restarted the postponed repair by hand.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Database

   Contributing factor

   No headroomExcessive blast radiusHarmful manual actionIgnored early signal

   Remediation

   • Reduced the load on the Cassandra cluster
   • Stopped the Cassandra repair process
   • Cut communication between some Cassandra nodes to stabilise the cluster
   • On 4 June, deleted all in-flight data in the notification pipeline in a "factory reset"
   • Brought downstream systems back into a consistent state with the emptied pipeline by hand

   Action items

   • Scale the existing Cassandra nodes vertically to bigger, faster servers
   • Set up multiple Cassandra clusters and spread the workloads across them
   • Set system load thresholds at which the Cassandra clusters are scaled out horizontally ahead of need
   • Upgrade the current and new clusters to a more recent Cassandra version
   • Add more load shedding techniques to control Cassandra under high load
   • Bring more Cassandra expertise in-house

   Lessons

   PagerDuty concluded that its Cassandra cluster was underscaled and shared by too many services with different load and usage patterns, and that the scaling work should have come before the planned Cassandra version upgrade.

   View case

By root cause4