Cases17 cases

10 to 14 of 17

1. IL-0210 GitHub's MySQL clusters failed over to the US West Coast and the site served slow, stale, inconsistent data for 24 hours

   GitHub2018

   Symptoms

   At 22:54 UTC on 21 October 2018 GitHub's internal monitoring started alerting on many faults at once. By 23:02 UTC the first responders saw that the replication topologies of many MySQL clusters were in an unexpected state: the Orchestrator API showed topologies made only of servers in the US West Coast data center. When connectivity came back, the application tier had immediately started sending writes to the new West Coast primaries.

   Split brainFailover failureReplication lagHigh latency

   Trigger

   At 22:52 UTC on 21 October, routine maintenance to replace failing 100G optical equipment cut connectivity between GitHub's US East Coast network hub and its primary US East Coast data center for 43 seconds.

   Root cause

   DNS or network fault

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase failover managerDatabase replicationDatabase backups and snapshotsNIC, cable and switch port link

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationUnverified assumption

   Detection

   GitHub's internal monitoring raised alerts on numerous faults at 22:54 UTC, two minutes after the partition. By 23:02 UTC the first responders had found, by querying the Orchestrator API, that many database clusters had a topology with only US West Coast servers.

   Remediation

   • Locked the internal deployment tooling to stop further changes
   • Paused webhook delivery and GitHub Pages builds to stop jobs writing metadata
   • Restored the affected MySQL clusters from backups into the US East Coast data center and let them replicate from the West Coast
   • Found ways to restore directly from the West Coast to get around the throughput limits of downloading from off-site storage
   • Moved all database primaries back to the US East Coast data center
   • Spread read traffic over additional MySQL read replicas in the US East Coast public cloud so replication could catch up
   • Failed over to the original topology once the replicas were in sync
   • Processed the backlog of webhook events and Pages builds, pausing to raise an internal TTL after about 200,000 webhook payloads were dropped

   Action items

   • Reconcile the writes from the captured MySQL binary logs that were not replicated, automatically where possible and with user outreach otherwise
   • Make sure status updates can be published even when GitHub Pages builds are paused
   • Give more accurate public estimates of the time to repair
   • Configure Orchestrator so it cannot promote database primaries across regional boundaries
   • Move to a status reporting mechanism that shows the status of each component of the platform
   • Serve GitHub traffic from multiple data centers in an active/active/active design with N+1 redundancy at the facility level
   • Test assumptions about the system more proactively
   • Validate failure scenarios systematically, with investment in fault injection and chaos engineering tooling

   Lessons

   Orchestrator did what it was configured to do, but the application tier could not work with primaries on the other side of the country: leader election within one region is generally safe, while the sudden cross-country latency was a major contributing factor. The behaviour emerged from a partition larger than any GitHub had seen. Replication caught up along a power decay curve, not a straight line, so the linear estimates of recovery time were wrong. GitHub concluded that tighter operational controls and faster response are not enough on their own and that failure scenarios have to be validated before they happen.

   View case
2. IL-0325 DigitalOcean's control panel and API were down for 4 hours 56 minutes after the production primary database was deleted

   DigitalOcean2017

   Symptoms

   At 10:24 AM EDT on April 5th, 2017, DigitalOcean began to receive alerts that its public services were not working, and by 10:27 the team had verified that the production database on the primary had been deleted. The control panel and the API were unavailable for four hours and fifty-six minutes: running Droplets kept working, but no new Droplets or other resources could be created or managed.

   Service outage

   Trigger

   A process performing automated testing had been misconfigured with production credentials, and the production primary database was deleted.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase replicationDatabase backups and snapshots

   Contributing factor

   No safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   Alerts at 10:24 AM EDT that public services were not functioning; within three minutes the team found that the primary database had been deleted.

   Remediation

   • Began recovery from a time-delayed database replica
   • Took a backup of the time-delayed replica
   • Copied the backup to the primary and recovered it
   • Copied the backups to the replicas until all systems were restored

   Action items

   • Drastically reduce access to the primary system for certain actions
   • Upgrade network connectivity between database servers
   • Update hardware to speed up recovery
   • Assess further safeguards against developer error
   • Improve the processes around data recovery
   • Explore ways to provide better real-time information to customers during future customer-impacting events

   View case
3. IL-0334 Instapaper's RDS MySQL bookmarks table hit the 2TB ext3 file size limit, inserts failed and the service went down

   Instapaper2017

   Symptoms

   On Wednesday, February 9, 2017 at 12:30PM PT, inserts of new entries into the bookmarks table of Instapaper's MySQL database on Amazon RDS started to fail with an error. The bookmarks table, which stores the articles Instapaper users save, had grown past 2TB, and the Instapaper service was down until Thursday, February 10 at 7:30pm PT.

   Writes rejectedService outage

   Trigger

   At 12:30PM PT on February 9 the bookmarks table grew past the 2TB file size limit of the instance's filesystem.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase backups and snapshotsDatabase replication

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitMonitoring blind spotUntested backupNo runbookLimited debug access

   Remediation

   • Dumped the production database to a 5.5TB RAID-0 disk on an i2.8xlarge instance with Pinterest's SRE team
   • Launched a temporary production instance with limited access to archives
   • Set up an Aurora read replica of the old database as one recovery path
   • Imported the data into a new MySQL RDS instance without secondary indexes, then built the indexes
   • Had an Amazon engineer rsync the data from the ext3 filesystem to an ext4 filesystem mounted on the failed database
   • Synced the new ext4 database with the temporary production database through row-based replication
   • Promoted the new database to master and pointed the application at it

   Action items

   • Define a workflow that escalates system-wide Instapaper outages immediately to Pinterest's SRE team
   • Test MySQL backups every month instead of every three months
   • Put a process in place with Pinterest's SRE team to recover from this type of failure

   Lessons

   A filesystem limit that Instapaper did not know about and could not see made both the production database and all its backups useless, and the only way out was to restore the data onto a new filesystem. Because the hosted database could only be reached through MySQL, filesystem-level fixes such as rsync needed Amazon engineers. Even with a perfect response, rebuilding the database would have taken at least 10 hours. The lack of a disaster recovery plan for this kind of failure, and the estimate of the dump time from row counts, made the downtime and recovery longer than necessary, and the response could have drawn better on Pinterest's and AWS's people. The new escalation workflow and monthly backup tests would not have prevented this failure but would speed up the response to a future one.

   View case
4. IL-0218 GitLab.com's primary PostgreSQL data was wiped by mistake and, with no working backup, the site was down about 18 hours

   GitLab2017

   Symptoms

   From around 19:00 UTC on 31 January 2017, load on GitLab.com's PostgreSQL database rose, which GitLab suspected was spam, and many users could not post comments on issues and merge requests. Around 23:00 UTC the replication of the PostgreSQL secondary fell behind and then failed, because WAL segments it still needed had already been removed from the primary.

   Database overloadReplication lagData lossService outage

   Trigger

   While trying to restore replication to the secondary, an engineer ran the removal of the PostgreSQL data directory on the primary, db1.cluster.gitlab.com, believing it was the secondary.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase replicationDatabase backups and snapshotsCloud block storage

   Contributing factor

   Untested backupSingle point of failureNo runbookPages not deliveredUnverified assumptionUnreviewed defaults

   Detection

   The engineer who ran the deletion on the primary noticed the mistake and stopped it a second or two later.

   Remediation

   • Raised max_wal_senders from 3 to 32 and lowered max_connections from 8000 to 2000 so PostgreSQL would restart
   • Stopped the deletion on the primary a second or two after noticing it
   • Restored the database from the LVM snapshot taken about 6 hours before the outage by copying the PostgreSQL data directory from staging
   • Restored the webhooks from a separate database built from the snapshot and imported them as a SQL dump
   • Incremented all database sequences by 100,000 so IDs used before the outage could not be reused
   • Re-enabled GitLab.com gradually
   • Rebuilt projects created after 17:20 UTC in basic form from their Git repositories on the NFS cluster

   Action items

   • Change the shell prompt (PS1) on all hosts to show more clearly which host and environment is in use
   • Monitor backups with Prometheus
   • Set PostgreSQL's max_connections to a sane value
   • Investigate point-in-time recovery and continuous archiving for PostgreSQL
   • Take LVM snapshots of the production databases every hour
   • Take Azure disk snapshots of the production databases
   • Move staging to the ARM environment
   • Recover the production replicas
   • Test recovery of PostgreSQL database backups automatically
   • Improve the PostgreSQL replication documentation and runbooks
   • Investigate pgbarman for PostgreSQL backups
   • Investigate WAL-E for database backup and realtime replication
   • Build a streaming database restore
   • Assign an owner for data durability
   • Set up multiple secondaries and balance load among them with pgpool-II
   • Provide a tool for developers to run and revert Rails migrations on staging
   • Build owned recovery procedures for the rest of the GitLab.com infrastructure, not only the database
   • Publish a backup monitoring dashboard and add more backup data to it
   • Improve the abuse reporting and response system so removal for spam does not hard delete
   • Redact engineers' names in future public incident documents

   Lessons

   GitLab split the incident into two problems: GitLab.com went down because the primary's data directory was removed by mistake during a manual, undocumented replication rebuild, and recovery took over 18 hours because the backups had failed silently, disk snapshots were not enabled and the only copy sat on slow staging disks. The backup procedure was never tested because no one owned it. GitLab chose to focus on fast, regularly practised recovery and on making it obvious which host an engineer is on, rather than on blocking commands, since a safer rm only protects against one of many ways to lose data.

   View case
5. IL-0573 A developer's mistake dropped nine main tables of the Baemin billing MariaDB database and payments briefly stopped

   Woowa Brothers2016

   Symptoms

   At 15:00 on 27 December 2016, while a developer was working on a payment system module, nine main tables of the billing database were dropped. The monitoring system turned red, failure alerts poured in, and payments in 배달의민족 (Baemin) stopped for a while.

   Data lossService outage

   Trigger

   While developing a payment system module, the developer who wrote the post dropped nine main tables of the billing database by mistake.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase backups and snapshots

   Contributing factor

   –

   Detection

   The monitoring system turned red and failure alerts fired.

   Remediation

   • Pointed the application at a temporary database, which kept the outage short
   • Restored the dropped tables from the 6:00 mysqldump full backup
   • Replayed the binary log from 6:00 to 15:00 with mysqlbinlog, filtered to the nine tables and stopping before the DROP TABLE

   Action items

   • Replace mysqldump backups of the billing database with full backups taken by XtraBackup

   Lessons

   There are many points where such failures can be managed: separate database accounts for the service and for administration, check once more before running a query, and guard against rm -rf. Without the full backup and the binary log the data could not have been recovered, so every team should check that it has a full recovery point for a failure.

   View case

By root cause8