Cases3 cases

1 to 3 of 3

1. IL-0552 CircleCI's archival database ran out of storage, slowing workflow and job starts and the display of workflows in the UI

   CircleCI2025

   Symptoms

   At about 23:00 UTC on 21 January 2025, an automated alert reported that the CircleCI database instance holding archived data was almost out of free storage space. From 23:50 UTC customers saw slow starts and cancellations of workflows and jobs, and delays and difficulty viewing workflows in the CircleCI UI, although pipelines for a specific project could still be viewed.

   High latencyIntermittent timeoutsLog floodNode disk fullCloud API rate limit exhausted

   Trigger

   A code change to a function in the archival database on 16 January 2025 unintentionally made it write an excessive number of log messages, and the database filled its storage.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   DatabaseCI system

   Contributing factor

   Change with a delayed effectExcessive blast radiusOverlapping failures

   Detection

   An automated alert at about 23:00 UTC warned that the archival database was almost out of free storage, before customers were affected. The growing workflows queue was not linked to it at first because a separate alert about request volume fired at about the same time.

   Remediation

   • Scaled up the event consumer that processes the workflows queue at 23:44 UTC
   • Promoted a read replica of the archival database to a standalone primary at 23:55 UTC

   Action items

   • Fix the database function so it no longer writes an excessive number of log messages
   • Add a max duration to the workflows retry policy for archiving so it fails earlier than the default timeout
   • Move workflow archival to an event-based model that decouples it from the workflows service
   • Add forecast and anomaly monitoring for databases that alerts on unusual activity before it reaches critical levels

   Lessons

   The storage alert on the archival database did fire, but the database filled much faster than forecast, so there was little time to act before customers were affected. Because the workflows service called the archival service synchronously, a problem in the archival database slowed the whole workflows service.

   View case
2. IL-0386 After a move to Google Cloud, Postgres connection timeouts and memcached i/o timeouts spiked on GKE nodes

   incident.io2023

   Symptoms

   Shortly after incident.io moved its infrastructure fully into Google Cloud, the application saw a larger-than-normal number of Postgres connection timeouts, and new database connections per second were in the hundreds, spiking up and down. At the same time, the memcached instance used for transient data and faster API responses had sporadic connection timeouts.

   Intermittent timeoutsPacket loss

   Trigger

   After the move to Google Cloud, the application opened hundreds of new Postgres connections per second, and an accidental database join made it send thousands of duplicate calls to an external third party in parallel.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CNI pluginDatabaseIn-memory cache

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsOverlapping failures

   Detection

   An incident was declared when the number of Postgres connection timeouts rose above normal. The remaining cache timeouts were traced through the logs of the Kubernetes node that served an affected request, the request's trace and the node's metrics.

   Remediation

   • Doubled the maximum Postgres connection lifespan from 15m to 30m
   • Made the Postgres connection pools static so they always keep N connections open
   • Raised the memcache client's MaxIdleConns from 2 to 20
   • Moved temporarily from Google's hosted memcached to a memcached inside the Kubernetes cluster
   • Shipped the fix for the accidental database join that made thousands of duplicate external calls

   Action items

   • Set more sensible concurrency limits for outbound network calls

   Lessons

   Network timeouts are not always local to one request or pod: when they appear, the whole activity of the node, including other pods on it, needs to be checked. Staying within a provider's rate limits does not keep outbound calls from affecting a node, so outbound network calls need more sensible concurrency limits.

   View case
3. IL-0241 A database shard could not elect a new primary, and the Stripe API failed most requests in two periods on one day

   Stripe2019

   Symptoms

   On 10 July 2019 the Stripe API failed a substantial majority of requests twice, from 16:35 to 17:02 UTC and from 21:14 to 22:47 UTC. In the first period automated monitoring detected within a minute that a database cluster had failed to elect a new primary.

   High error rateFailover failureWrites rejectedIntermittent timeoutsSustained high node CPU

   Trigger

   The primary node of a database cluster failed at 16:35 UTC while one shard had several stalled nodes. The second period was set off by rolling the election protocol back to the previous minor version at 20:42 UTC.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase failover manager

   Contributing factor

   Change with a delayed effectMonitoring blind spotExcessive blast radiusHarmful manual actionUnverified assumptionOverlapping failures

   Detection

   Automated monitoring detected the failed election within a minute, and the team was alerted at 16:36 UTC. The second period was announced at 21:14 UTC by automated alerts that some shards in the cluster were unavailable.

   Remediation

   • Restarted all nodes of the database cluster, which forced a successful primary election
   • Updated the production configuration and restarted the database cluster's nodes
   • Ramped traffic back up, putting services for user-initiated API requests first

   Action items

   • Alert when nodes stop reporting their replication lag
   • Alert when a shard enters a state that could trigger the election fault
   • Work with the database maintainers on a fix for the underlying fault
   • Add circuit breaking on failed operations to particular database clusters
   • Use fault isolation to contain the impact of a single failed shard
   • Limit the resources used by clients that keep retrying failed requests
   • Add procedures and tooling that make rapid configuration changes during incident response safer

   View case

By root cause3