Cases3 cases

1 to 3 of 3

1. 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
2. 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
3. IL-0219 GoCardless's API and Dashboard failed every request for 1 hour 50 minutes when Pacemaker did not promote a replica

   GoCardless2017

   Symptoms

   At 15:09 BST on 10 October 2017, GoCardless's monitoring detected a total outage of its API and Dashboard: every request failed and returned an error. By 15:11 engineers saw evidence of a disk array failure on the primary Postgres node, but the Pacemaker cluster had not failed over to the synchronous replica as it should have.

   Service outageFailover failure

   Trigger

   The RAID controller of the primary Postgres node lost 3 disks of its array at once, so all reads and writes on the primary failed.

   Root cause

   Hardware failure

   Component

   DatabaseDatabase failover manager

   Contributing factor

   Overlapping failuresUnverified assumption

   Detection

   GoCardless's monitoring detected the total outage of the API and Dashboard at 15:09 BST, and engineers began investigating.

   Remediation

   • Powered off the broken primary Postgres node
   • Cleared the Pacemaker error counts with crm resource cleanup, which had no effect
   • Edited recovery.conf on the synchronous replica under maintenance mode several times, which Pacemaker reverted
   • Put the cluster into maintenance mode, configured the synchronous replica as primary and started Postgres by hand
   • Reconfigured the backend applications to connect to the new primary's actual IP address
   • Bootstrapped a third node as an asynchronous replica
   • Added a VIP managed by hand by the infrastructure team for manual failover
   • Verified data integrity and found no corruption
   • Migrated to a new Pacemaker-managed database cluster in a maintenance window and decommissioned the old one

   Action items

   • Express the Backup VIP rule as an INF preference for a replica instead of a -INF preference against the primary
   • Replace the VIPs with proxies on the application servers that route traffic by the state of the cluster
   • Run harsher fault injection tests of the Postgres cluster and consider automation that injects failures continually
   • Consider adding arbitrary restrictions to game day exercises, such as automation that has failed and a problem that cannot be diagnosed, so engineers practise bringing the service back another way

   Lessons

   A rule that two resources must not run together does not behave like the opposite of a rule that they must run together, and in some failure conditions the difference stopped Pacemaker from promoting a replica. A misconfiguration that shows only when two processes crash at almost the same time will not appear in basic tests or daily operations, only through fault injection. After two years in which the automation had handled every failure, the team's skill at controlling the cluster by hand had faded, and a runbook unused for years would likely have been out of date.

   View case

By root cause3