Things I will do differently in the next building power shutdown (part 2)
Back at the start of last September, we had an overnight building wide power shutdown in the building with our machine room and I wrote a lessons-learned entry in the aftermath. Well, we just had another one and apparently I didn't learn all of the lessons that I needed to learn the first time around. So here's another set of things that I've now learned.
Next time around I will:
- explicitly save the previous time's checklist. If nothing else,
the 'power up' portion makes a handy guide for what to do if you
abruptly lose building power some day.
(I sort of did this last time, not through active planning but just because I reflexively don't delete basically any of this sort of stuff. But I should do it deliberately and put it somewhere where I can easily find it, instead of just leaving it lying around.)
Having last time's list isn't the end of the work, because things have undoubtedly changed since then. But it's a starting point and a jog to the memory.
- start preparing the checklist well in advance, like more than a day
beforehand. Things worked out in the end but doing things at the last
moment was a bit nerve wracking.
(There's always stuff to do around here and somehow it always felt like there was plenty of time right up until it was Friday and we had a Monday night shutdown.)
- update and correct the checklist immediately afterwards to cover
things that we missed.
My entry from last time is kind of
vague; I'm sure I knew the specifics I was thinking of at the
time, but I didn't write them down so they slipped away. I was
able to reconstruct a few things from notes and email in the wake
of last time, but others I only realized in the aftermath of this
- add explanatory notes about why things are being done in a certain
order and what the dependencies are. Especially in the bustle of
trying to get everything down or up as fast as possible, it's
useful to have something to jog our minds about why something is
the way it is and whether or not it's that important.
(Our checklists for this sort of thing are not fixed; they're more guidelines than requirements. We deviate from them on the fly and thus it's really useful to have some indication of how flexible or rigid things are.)
- if any machines are being brought down and then deliberately not being brought back up, explicitly mention this so that people don't get potentially confused about a 'missing' machine.
My entry from last time was very useful in several ways. I reread it when I was preparing our checklist for this time and it jogged my memory about several important issues; as a result our checklist for this time around was (I think) significantly better than for last time (and also noticeably longer and more verbose). This time I at least made new mistakes, which is progress that I can live with.
I will also probably try to put more explanation into the checklist the next time around. I'm sure it's possible to put too much of it in, but I don't think that's been our problem so far. In the heat of the moment we're going to skim anyways, so the thing to do is to break the checklist up into skimmable blocks with actions and things to check off and then chunks of additional explanation after them.
(In a sense a checklist like this serves two purposes at once. During the power down or power up it is mostly a catalog of actions and ordering, but beforehand it's a discussion and a rationale for what needs to be done and why. Without the logic behind it being written out explicitly, you can't have that discussion; once you have that logic written out, you might as well leave it in to jog people's memories on the spot.)
On a side note, a full power up is an interesting and useful way to find problematic dependencies that have quietly worked their way into your overall network, ones that are not so noticeable when your systems are in their normal steady state. For example, DHCP service for several of our networks now depends on our core fileserver, which means that it can only come up fairly late in the power up process. We're going to be fixing that.
(There is a chain of dependencies that made this make sense in a steady state environment.)
Comments on this page:Written on 09 May 2012.