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

Incidents/2022-07-12 codfw A5 powercycle

From Wikitech-static
Jump to navigation Jump to search

document status: final

Summary

Incident metadata (see Incident Scorecard)
Incident ID 2022-07-12 codfw A5 powercycle Start 2022-07-12 15:45:00
Task T309957 End 2022-07-12 16:00:00
People paged 26 Responder count 9
Coordinators Brandon Black Affected metrics/SLOs
Impact No apparent user-facing impact, but lots of internal clean up, e.g. for Ganeti VMs.

During the scheduled maintenance to upgrade the PDUs in rack A5, CyrusOne flipped the incorrect breaker on the breaker panel, prior to pulling the PDU's power cord out from its circuit. This resulted in all servers in rack A5 losing power to both its primary and secondary power feeds. The affected hardware in rack A5 booted back up, once CyrusOne realized the mistake and flipped the breaker back on.

  • 15:45 <+icinga-wm> PROBLEM - Host graphite2003 #page is DOWN: PING CRITICAL - Packet loss = 100%
  • 15:45 <+icinga-wm> PROBLEM - Host maps2005 is DOWN: PING CRITICAL - Packet loss = 100%
  • 15:55 <+icinga-wm> PROBLEM - MariaDB read only s8 #page on db2079 is CRITICAL: Could not connect to localhost:3306
  • 15:56 <+icinga-wm> PROBLEM - MariaDB read only m1 #page on db2132 is CRITICAL: Could not connect to localhost:3306
  • ..
  • 16:00 <+icinga-wm> RECOVERY - MariaDB read only s8 #page on db2079 is OK

Actionable

  • As a remediation item, the remaining PDU maintenances at codfw will no longer be hot-swapped with live equipment. After 3 of 5 inadvertent incidents, Dc-Ops team deemed it would be safer to coordinate with the SREs for hard downtime for all the affected servers in each rack. This would result in the graceful shutdown of affected servers, and allow for a shorter duration to complete each PDU upgrade with a temporary hired contractor.

See also

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? no
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.

yes
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 the engineering tools that were to be used during the incident, available and in service? yes
Were the steps taken to mitigate guided by an existing runbook? no
Total score (count of all “yes” answers above) 7