You are browsing a read-only backup copy of Wikitech. The primary site can be found at wikitech.wikimedia.org

Incidents/2022-05-26 Database hardware failure: Difference between revisions

From Wikitech-static
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>LSobanski
 
imported>Krinkle
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{irdoc|status=draft}}
{{irdoc|status=review}}


==Summary==
==Summary==
{{Incident scorecard
{{Incident scorecard
| task =T309286  
| task = T309286
| paged-num =26  
| paged-num = 26
| responders-num =4  
| responders-num = 4
| coordinators =  
| coordinators =  
| start =2022-05-26 09:38:00  
| start = 2022-05-26 09:38:00
| end =2022-05-26 09:50:00  
| end = 2022-05-26 09:50:00
|impact=Internal services with databases on m1 section (e.g. Etherpad) were unavailable or degraded.}}
| impact = For 12 minutes, internal services hosted on the m1 database (e.g. Etherpad) were unavailable or at reduced capacity.
<!-- Reminder: No private information on this page! -->
}}
 
For approximately 12 minutes some internal services (e.g. [[Bacula]] and [[Etherpad]]) were not available or operated at reduced capacity. This was caused by a faulty memory stick leading to a reboot of db1128, which was at the time the primary host of the [[MariaDB#Miscellaneous|m1 database section]].
<mark>Summary of what happened, in one or two paragraphs. Avoid assuming deep knowledge of the systems here, and try to differentiate between proximate causes and root causes.</mark>


'''Documentation''':
'''Documentation''':
*<mark>Todo (Link to relevant source code, graphs, or logs)</mark>
*[[phab:P28584|Full list of potentially affected services]]


==Actionables==
==Actionables==
<mark>Create a list of action items that will help prevent this from happening again as much as possible. Link to or create a Phabricator task for every step.</mark>
*[[phab:T309296|Failover m1 primary db from db1128 to db1164]]
 
*[[phab:T309291|db1128 faulty memory]]
*<mark>To do #1 (TODO: Create task)</mark>
*...
 
<mark>TODO: Add the [[phab:project/view/4758/|#Sustainability (Incident Followup)]] and the [[phab:project/profile/4626/|#SRE-OnFIRE (Pending Review & Scorecard)]] Phabricator tag to these tasks.</mark>


==Scorecard==
==Scorecard==
Line 37: Line 32:
! rowspan="5" |People
! rowspan="5" |People
|Were the people responding to this incident sufficiently different than the previous five incidents?
|Were the people responding to this incident sufficiently different than the previous five incidents?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
|Were the people who responded prepared enough to respond effectively
|Were the people who responded prepared enough to respond effectively
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
|Were fewer than five people paged?
|Were fewer than five people paged?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
|Were pages routed to the correct sub-team(s)?
|Were pages routed to the correct sub-team(s)?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
|Were pages routed to online (business hours) engineers?  ''Answer “no” if engineers were paged after business hours.''
|Were pages routed to online (business hours) engineers?  ''Answer “no” if engineers were paged after business hours.''
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
! rowspan="5" |Process
! rowspan="5" |Process
|Was the incident status section actively updated during the incident?
|Was the incident status section actively updated during the incident?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
|Was the public status page updated?
|Was the public status page updated?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
|Is there a phabricator task for the incident?
|Is there a phabricator task for the incident?
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
|Are the documented action items assigned?
|Are the documented action items assigned?
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
|Is this incident sufficiently different from earlier incidents so as not to be a repeat occurrence?
|Is this incident sufficiently different from earlier incidents so as not to be a repeat occurrence?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
Line 80: Line 75:
|To the best of your knowledge was the open task queue free of any tasks that would have prevented this incident? ''Answer “no” if there are''
|To the best of your knowledge was the open task queue free of any tasks that would have prevented this incident? ''Answer “no” if there are''
''open tasks that would prevent this incident or make mitigation easier if implemented.''
''open tasks that would prevent this incident or make mitigation easier if implemented.''
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
|Were the people responding able to communicate effectively during the incident with the existing tooling?
|Were the people responding able to communicate effectively during the incident with the existing tooling?
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
|Did existing monitoring notify the initial responders?
|Did existing monitoring notify the initial responders?
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
|Were all engineering tools required available and in service?
|Were all engineering tools required available and in service?
|
|yes
|
|
|-
|-
|Was there a runbook for all known issues present?
|Was there a runbook for all known issues present?
|
|no
|
|
|-
|-
! colspan="2" align="right" |Total score (count of all “yes” answers above)
! colspan="2" align="right" |Total score (count of all “yes” answers above)
|
|7
|
|
|}
|}

Latest revision as of 17:58, 15 June 2022

document status: in-review

Summary

Incident metadata (see Incident Scorecard)
Incident ID 2022-05-26 Database hardware failure Start 2022-05-26 09:38:00
Task T309286 End 2022-05-26 09:50:00
People paged 26 Responder count 4
Coordinators Affected metrics/SLOs
Impact For 12 minutes, internal services hosted on the m1 database (e.g. Etherpad) were unavailable or at reduced capacity.

For approximately 12 minutes some internal services (e.g. Bacula and Etherpad) were not available or operated at reduced capacity. This was caused by a faulty memory stick leading to a reboot of db1128, which was at the time the primary host of the m1 database section.

Documentation:

Actionables

Scorecard

Incident Engagement™ ScoreCard
Question Answer

(yes/no)

Notes
People Were the people responding to this incident sufficiently different than the previous five incidents? no
Were the people who responded prepared enough to respond effectively yes
Were fewer than five people paged? no
Were pages routed to the correct sub-team(s)? no
Were pages routed to online (business hours) engineers? Answer “no” if engineers were paged after business hours. yes
Process Was the incident status section actively updated during the incident? no
Was the public status page updated? no
Is there a phabricator task for the incident? yes
Are the documented action items assigned? yes
Is this incident sufficiently different from earlier incidents so as not to be a repeat occurrence? no
Tooling To the best of your knowledge was the open task queue free of any tasks that would have prevented this incident? Answer “no” if there are

open tasks that would prevent this incident or make mitigation easier if implemented.

no
Were the people responding able to communicate effectively during the incident with the existing tooling? yes
Did existing monitoring notify the initial responders? yes
Were all engineering tools required available and in service? yes
Was there a runbook for all known issues present? no
Total score (count of all “yes” answers above) 7