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

Incidents/2022-09-08 codfw api-https api appserver appserver parsoid degradation

From Wikitech-static
< Incidents
Revision as of 16:37, 8 September 2022 by imported>Clément Goubert (Additional timeline information)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

document status: draft

Summary

Incident metadata (see Incident Scorecard)
Incident ID 2022-09-08 codfw api-https api appserver appserver parsoid degradation Start 2022-09-08 15:18:18
Task T317340 End 2022-09-08 15:51:18
People paged 1 Responder count 3
Coordinators claime Affected metrics/SLOs Response time and 5xx rate
Impact For 2 minutes, api-https, api_appserver and appserver in codfw were in a degraded state

For 16 minutes, parsoid in codfw was in a degraded state

An nginx server restart (RC) triggered an etcdmirror outage during a wikimedia-config deployment. When etcdmirror was restarted, a wrong state was synchronized which depooled a part of api-https api appserver appserver and parsoid servers.

Timeline

Write a step by step outline of what happened to cause the incident, and how it was remedied. Include the lead-up to the incident, and any epilogue.

Consider including a graphs of the error rate or other surrogate.

Link to a specific offset in SAL using the SAL tool at https://sal.toolforge.org/ (example)

All times in UTC.

https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/RIA1lzDZk/application-servers-red?orgId=1&var-site=codfw&var-cluster=api_appserver&var-method=GET&var-code=200&var-php_version=All&from=1662651131187&to=1662651531187 https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/RIA1lzDZk/application-servers-red?orgId=1&var-site=codfw&var-cluster=appserver&var-method=GET&var-code=200&var-php_version=All&from=1662651131187&to=1662651531187 https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/RIA1lzDZk/application-servers-red?orgId=1&var-site=codfw&var-cluster=parsoid&var-method=GET&var-code=200&var-php_version=All&from=1662651131187&to=1662651531187

  • ??? : moritzm updates nginx, causing a restart
  • 15:17:24 : conf2005 systemd[1]: etcdmirror-conftool-eqiad-wmnet.service crashes
  • 15:18:18 : claime launches scap sync-file and notices errors
  • 15:22:02: irc alert | PROBLEM - etcdmirror-conftool-eqiad-wmnet service on conf2005 is CRITICAL: CRITICAL - Expecting active but unit etcdmirror-conftool-eqiad-wmnet is failed
  • 15:28:36 : jayme notices issues with conf2005/etcdmirror
  • 15:33:29 : akosiaris restarts etcdmirror
  • 15:34:00~: User-visible degradation begins
  • 15:34:42 : _joe_ notices https://config-master.wikimedia.org/pybal/codfw/api-https
  • 15:35:36 : _joe_ repools api-https
  • 15:36:32 : _joe_ repools api_appserver
  • 15:36:42 : _joe_ repools appserver
  • 15:36:42~: User-visible degradation ends
  • 15:50:32 : claime repools parsoid

Detection

Write how the issue was first detected. Was automated monitoring first to detect it? Or a human reporting an error?

claime reports errors during scap sync-file

Copy the relevant alerts that fired in this section.

15:22:02 +icinga-wm | PROBLEM - etcdmirror-conftool-eqiad-wmnet service on conf2005 is CRITICAL: CRITICAL - Expecting active but unit etcdmirror-conftool-eqiad-wmnet is failed

Did the appropriate alert(s) fire? Was the alert volume manageable? Did they point to the problem with as much accuracy as possible?

Alert fired but (no page)?

TODO: If human only, an actionable should probably be to "add alerting".

Conclusions

OPTIONAL: General conclusions (bullet points or narrative)

What went well?

OPTIONAL: (Use bullet points) for example: automated monitoring detected the incident, outage was root-caused quickly, etc

What went poorly?

OPTIONAL: (Use bullet points) for example: documentation on the affected service was unhelpful, communication difficulties, etc

Where did we get lucky?

OPTIONAL: (Use bullet points) for example: user's error report was exceptionally detailed, incident occurred when the most people were online to assist, etc

Links to relevant documentation

Add links to information that someone responding to this alert should have (runbook, plus supporting docs). If that documentation does not exist, add an action item to create it.

Actionables

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.

Add the #Sustainability (Incident Followup) and the #SRE-OnFIRE (Pending Review & Scorecard) Phabricator tag to these tasks.

Scorecard

Incident Engagement ScoreCard
Question Answer

(yes/no)

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

Were the people responding able to communicate effectively during the incident with the existing tooling?
Did existing monitoring notify the initial responders?
Were the engineering tools that were to be used during the incident, available and in service?
Were the steps taken to mitigate guided by an existing runbook?
Total score (count of all “yes” answers above)