Incident Library
Applied filters ComponentDatabase replicationSymptomData lossFactorUnreviewed defaultsClear allEvery case under the filters, with no sentence; newest first.
Suggested filters Search, and the values found in your words appear here.

Graph

  • Root cause
  • Component
  • Symptom
  • Contributing factor
  • Case

Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

  1. Symptoms

    On 7 August 2017, while checking the application after the maintenance that moved Mackerel from an on-premises data center to AWS, the team found that data updated during a specific time window was missing. Everything written to the PostgreSQL database between 14:30 and 15:30 JST was gone.

    Trigger

    One hour after the application was switched to the newly promoted primary db001, db001 lost network connectivity and the database failed over to the standby db002.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    The team found the missing data while checking how the application behaved after the migration work.

    Remediation
    • Tried to restore the lost updates by hand from the table data left on db001 and gave up
    • Tried point-in-time recovery from the base backup and WAL and gave up
    • Built a new replica db003 with db002 as primary to restore redundancy
    • Kept db001 in maintenance state for investigation
    • Watched db002 for some time to confirm the problem did not recur, then completed the migration
    Action items
    • Change the PostgreSQL replica creation script to set recovery_target_timeline = 'latest' in recovery.conf by default
    • Add a check to a server configuration test tool such as Serverspec that recovery.conf contains recovery_target_timeline = 'latest'
    Lessons

    A setting needed only for a rare layout, such as a grandchild replica during a migration, was applied by hand through a script option and was forgotten. Because recovery_target_timeline = 'latest' is harmless on ordinary standbys too, Hatena now sets it by default whenever a replica is created. The staging rehearsal used the same layout and steps but had the setting right, so it could not catch the mistake. Hatena notes that a similar layout may be used again for a future PostgreSQL upgrade or a move to another region.

  2. 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.

    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
    Component
    Contributing factor
    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.

Check your cluster for this

These 2 cases involve Database and Database replication. kubegap audits a Kubernetes cluster for gaps like these, read-only, from Claude Code or Codex; its checks cite public reports like the ones in this library.

By root cause1