Incident Library
Applied filters SymptomDatabase overloadFactorHarmful manual actionOrganisationHoneycombClear 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

Cases1 case

1 to 1 of 1

  1. Symptoms

    Hours after a routine switch between two clusters of Retriever, Honeycomb's storage and query engine, late on 24 July 2023, the internal SLO for Shepherd, the ingest service, began to burn slowly. The performance was only marginally slow and inconsistent, with no good explanation, so engineers treated it as minor and left it for the morning.

    Trigger

    Late on 24 July Honeycomb switched between two Retriever clusters to avoid a subtle bug, and the new cluster stopped writing the last-written timestamps the schema cache depends on. On the morning of 25 July a feature flag flip meant to move those writes back stopped the remaining writes entirely.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Hours after the cluster switch, the internal SLO for the ingest service Shepherd started burning slowly. Engineers left it for the morning, when a chart showed that Retriever's database calls updating the last-written records had stopped.

    Remediation
    • Flipped only the writes back to the other Retriever cluster with a feature flag, which did not fix the problem
    • Set up circuit breakers that denied all Shepherd traffic with a 5xx error to protect the database
    • Failed the hard-locked database over to a replica
    • Restarted all Retriever hosts so they could provide data for the cache
    • Set the last-written timestamp of every schema with traffic in the last day to now, so the schema store reloaded the cache
    • Removed the circuit breaker and restarted the query hosts that failed internal checks
    Action items
    • Finish the Retriever cluster migration and remove all code that could disable writes behind the cache
    • Explore ways to strengthen the cache further
    • Lower the contention put on the database during update storms from new schemas
    • Stabilise the performance costs of some operations in the system
    • Study instrumentation and experimentation that detect and handle such edge cases better
    Lessons

    Locally good decisions combined into the outage: the query engine wrote the timestamps because it already saw all the data, the shared cache helped scale ingest and untangle the main database, the cluster switch was done to avoid a bug, frequent deploys hid the feature flag bug, pausing deploys during the investigation kept hosts from restarting, and past near-misses made the team expect a slow failover. Feature flags, frequent deploys, pausing deploys during incidents and learning from near-misses all contributed, although they are among the practices Honeycomb trusts most. For a rare lockup of this kind a database failover is the fastest recovery. Several recent Honeycomb incidents started from trying to avoid a subtle bug.

Check your cluster for this

This case involves In-memory cache and Database. 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