Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0490 Records were missing from LootLocker's new MySQL database after a migration cutover and the service degraded for 3 hours

   LootLocker2026sev2

   Symptoms

   About an hour after LootLocker cut over from a managed database provider to its own MySQL deployment on 2026-04-28, data anomalies showed up in production. A small window of writes made shortly before the migration, spanning 2026-04-19 to 2026-04-20, had never reached the new database, and the service stayed degraded for about three hours after the cutover.

   Data loss

   Trigger

   On 2026-04-20 at about 16:20 BST, a routine credential rotation, made as part of an unrelated configuration fix, changed the credentials that the temporary replication process used for its database connection, and the process crashed.

   Root cause

   Certificate or credential expiry

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase replication

   Contributing factor

   Change with a delayed effectMonitoring blind spotUnverified assumptionNo safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   Data anomalies were detected in production at about 11:30 BST, about an hour after the cutover.

   Remediation

   • Restored normal service behaviour first and deferred the root cause analysis
   • Requested a restore of the deleted source database from the previous provider
   • Replayed the affected records for impacted users from the restored source database

   Action items

   • Perform technical changes of comparable risk in a scheduled maintenance window instead of as live cutovers
   • Require a pre-cutover checklist that verifies replication or sync processes are live and caught up just before cutover
   • Require an explicit downstream impact review for credential rotations of service accounts used by long-running processes
   • Keep source systems until integrity in the target has been independently verified after cutover
   • Publish planned maintenance and migration notices in the in-product News feed as well as Discord, with clear impact statements and more advance notice

   Lessons

   The failure was a silent side effect of an unrelated change made eight days earlier: the replication process recovered and kept working, so there was no signal that data had been dropped, and a pre-cutover integrity check would have caught it. Deleting the source database before validating the new one made recovery much harder. Choosing a live migration to avoid downtime left no clean point to verify integrity, and the resulting degradation and two days of piecemeal recovery far exceeded what a short planned maintenance window would have cost. The announcement on Discord was not clear enough about the impact and came with too little notice.

   View case
2. IL-0242 Both PostgreSQL servers behind matrix.org were lost during a disk expansion, and the homeserver was down for 24 hours

   Matrix.org Foundation2025

   Symptoms

   On 2 September 2025 the matrix.org homeserver went down at 17:45 UTC and stayed down until 18:00 UTC the next day. Both machines of its PostgreSQL cluster were out of action: the original primary had lost its RAID array during a disk expansion, and the data directory of the new primary had been deleted by mistake.

   Service outageData loss

   Trigger

   During maintenance to add drives, an existing drive disappeared from the primary database server's RAID 10 array at 11:17 UTC, which led to a failover and a rebuild of that server. The outage itself began when the data directory of the new primary on db-01 was deleted while clearing a failed restore on db-02.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase backups and snapshotsDatabase replication

   Contributing factor

   Overlapping failuresHarmful manual actionUnpatched known bugNo safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   Monitoring fired when the drive disappeared from db-02's RAID array at 11:17 UTC, and Mythic Beasts confirmed the issue. The team realised it had deleted db-01's data directory, and the backend team was then paged, an incident was opened and an emergency was declared.

   Remediation

   • Created a fresh RAID 10 array on db-02
   • Unblocked WAL archiving from the new primary on db-01 to S3
   • Started restoring db-02 from the S3 backups with wal-g
   • Shut down Synapse and the damaged primary database
   • Remounted the data partition of db-01 read-only
   • Copied the WALs missing from S3 from db-01 to db-02
   • Updated wal-g and patched it to continue from the partial restore
   • Configured a restore_command wrapper that fetched WALs from S3 and the local files, and replayed them in standby mode
   • Promoted db-02 to primary and restarted Synapse
   • Ran backups against the primary while no replica existed
   • Rebuilt db-01 as a replica from a base backup of db-02

   Action items

   • Run pg_repack to reclaim free space
   • Take incremental backups more often, since they restore faster than WAL replay
   • Reduce Synapse's storage requirements
   • Consider changing the terminal background colour by the database's role, for example by watching for the standby.signal file
   • Consider wrapper scripts around sensitive commands, such as an alias for rm, and automating operations such as starting a base backup from primary to secondary
   • Shorten the recovery time, with infrastructure from service providers
   • Upgrade wal-g on all servers and repeat disaster recovery testing with it
   • Explore ZFS local snapshots at the next hardware refresh
   • Make status.matrix.org the source of truth during incidents and keep social media updated

   Lessons

   Most of the difficulty came from the size of the database: restoring 51TB and replaying WALs took far longer than hoped, and incremental backups restore much faster than WAL replay. Running a destructive command on the wrong server was the turning point, and Matrix.org looks for better tooling and processes rather than blaming the individual; working as a trio did not catch the mistake, and server names that suggest a role caused confusion because a primary and a secondary swap roles. The recovery lost no data, but the recovery time needs to be shorter, and the wal-g versions on the disaster recovery server and the production servers had drifted apart.

   View case

By root cause2