Incident response and on-call
One commander coordinates; mitigate first on the fault's location alone; root-cause later; review blamelessly; keep on-call shares small.
Predict first
Before you read: predict
At 09:05 on ECON-201 day, 30% of autosaves through ExamHall's eu-west region answer 502, while eu-central answers normally. Each region is sized to carry all exam traffic by itself, and nothing has been deployed or reconfigured since yesterday. The on-call engineer has opened eu-west's traces and logs to look for the cause.
What should happen first?
The 30-second version
In an incident, one incident commander holds the whole picture and assigns the work; others change the system and keep stakeholders updated on a cadence. Stop user impact first, with a blunt mitigation that needs only where the fault is, and find the root cause afterwards. A blameless postmortem fixes systems, not people. Sustainable on-call keeps each engineer's share small.
One commander coordinates; mitigate first on the fault's location alone; root-cause later; review blamelessly; keep on-call shares small.
How it works
Step 1 of 13
Analogy: A satellite operations team at mission control
An Earth-observation satellite's battery starts to overheat.
| At mission control | In an incident |
|---|---|
| the flight director holds the picture and gives each controller a job, but sends no commands herself | the incident commander (steps 3–4) |
| one controller at the command console sends every command | one set of hands (step 5) |
| a liaison tells the imaging customers, on the hour, that pictures are paused | updates on a cadence (step 6) |
| safe mode ordered at once, panels to the sun and instruments off, knowing only that the fault is in the power system | mitigate first, on location alone (steps 7–8) |
| the satellite kept in safe mode until the heater fault is found | mitigated is not fixed (step 9) |
| the shift handover read aloud and acknowledged | handing over aloud (step 10) |
| the anomaly review asking what let a wrong heater setting be uploaded, not who typed it | a blameless postmortem (step 11) |
| console shifts with rest days between them | sustainable on-call (steps 12–13) |
In real terms: one person directs, one team acts, users hear on a schedule, impact stops before the cause is known, and the review fixes the system.
Breaks down when: safe mode is built into a satellite and rehearsed for years. A service's mitigations exist only if someone listed and rehearsed them before the incident, as runbook entries (step 8).
Contrasting case: an orbit change planned weeks ahead gets a reviewed procedure, not a flight director improvising. That is a planned change (judgment-change-safety).
Examples, run for real
4.1 ExamHall EXH-2200: the same incident, unmanaged and managed
EXH-2200: build 8.2 went out at 08:40. From 09:01, under exam load, 1 autosave in 4 answered 502, with 2,400 candidates saving twice a minute. Three engineers investigated from their own terminals; at 09:31 the pool metrics led Ines to a missing answers.attempt_id index, and the rollback to 8.1 finished at 09:36. MR !2500 is the runbook replayed below: Dana declares at 09:04 and commands, changing nothing; Sami, the operations lead, starts the six-minute rollback at 09:05; Ines keeps investigating.
4.1 as handled no commander · rollback done 09:36 · root cause 09:31 · user impact 09:01-09:36 · failed autosaves 42000 · after the root cause was found 6000 · first word to institutions 09:40
4.1 managed commander from 09:04 · rollback done 09:11 · root cause 09:31 · user impact 09:01-09:11 · failed autosaves 12000 · after the root cause was found 0 · updates to institutions 09:06 09:21 09:36
The root cause arrives at 09:31 in both runs. Managed, users stopped failing twenty minutes before it, because the mitigation did not wait for the cause (step 7).
4.2 Proof domain, checkout: a week of night shifts
The checkout team's night on-call took these incidents in one week, at six hours of work each, root cause and postmortem included (step 13):
4.2 checkout nights incidents 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 · hours of incident work 6 0 18 0 12 0 6 · shifts with more work than their 12 hours: 1 (Wed) · median incidents per shift 1
Wednesday needed eighteen hours of work in a twelve-hour shift, though the median night had one incident. A rotation can be small in share yet still overloaded in quality, so both are counted.
Try it
Answer first, then check. Nothing is saved.
Question 1 of 5
At 09:07 Lena, the on-call engineer, declares an incident and takes command. Three colleagues join the call: Omar owns the autosave service, Priya owns the exam database, and Ken owns neither but has run incidents before. Lena knows the region-failover tooling better than anyone on the call, and the call agrees that a failover is the next step.
Which plan should Lena follow?
Question 2 of 5
A shop's checkout was down for 40 minutes after an engineer ran a cleanup script against the production database, believing it pointed at staging. The script takes its target from one config file that holds both databases' connection strings.
Which follow-up action fits a blameless postmortem?
Question 3 of 5
ExamHall's platform team is 6 engineers at one site. Its 24/7 rotation keeps a primary and a secondary on call at all times, in week-long shifts, and several engineers say they are on call too often. The team wants a rotation it can sustain, still with two people on call at all times.
Which change gives it one?
Question 4 of 5
Since 19:40, 4% of video starts fail for viewers in one country; elsewhere video plays normally. The on-call engineer thinks the cause is a CDN setting she can correct herself in about half an hour, and no other team is involved.
What should she do now?
Question 5 of 5
At 21:02 message delivery started failing for chat users whose accounts live on shard 7. At 21:10 the incident team moved shard 7's accounts to a standby shard, and delivery recovered within a minute. Nobody yet knows why shard 7 failed.
What should the incident commander do next?
Go deeper
Pro tips
- Write the status-update template before the incident: what users see, what is being done, and the time of the next update. Let the incident tool refuse an update without a next-update time.
When: every incident with customers who can see it (step 6). Verify:
status-update: OK 21:15 draft (impact, action, next update 21:45) status-update: FAIL 21:20 draft (no next-update time)
Source
PagerDuty's process is a company's current practice: as of 2026-10-01. Valid as of 2026-10-01.
- Google SRE book, Managing Incidents (Andrew Stribblehill), the curriculum row's first source: https://sre.google/sre-book/managing-incidents/ (
sre-managing-incidents.txt). Declaring early and the three tests; the commander holding the high-level state; "The operations team should be the only group modifying the system during an incident"; periodic updates; the spoken handoff. - PagerDuty Incident Response documentation, the row's second source, as of 2026-10-01: Incident Commander, https://response.pagerduty.com/training/incident_commander/ (
pd-incident-commander.txt); During an Incident, https://response.pagerduty.com/during/during_an_incident/ (pd-during-an-incident.txt); Severity Levels, https://response.pagerduty.com/before/severity_levels/ (pd-severity-levels.txt); Being On-Call, https://response.pagerduty.com/oncall/being_oncall/ (pd-being-oncall.txt); Postmortem Process, https://response.pagerduty.com/after/post_mortem_process/ (pd-post-mortem-process.txt). Each read fromraw.githubusercontent.com/PagerDuty/incident-response-docs/master/docs/on 2026-10-01. "You should not be performing any actions or remediations, checking graphs, or investigating logs"; "treat it as the higher one"; ending the call once recovered. - Google SRE workbook, Incident Response: https://sre.google/workbook/incident-response/ (
srw-incident-response.txt). "Google always aims to first stop the impact of an incident, and then find the root cause"; generic mitigations, which need only "the location of the root cause"; the IC handing off and taking the OL role; silence read as inaction. - Google SRE book, Postmortem Culture: Learning from Failure: https://sre.google/sre-book/postmortem-culture/ (
sre-postmortem-culture.txt). Blameless postmortems, fixing systems rather than people, triggers and wide sharing. - Google SRE book, Being On-Call (Andrea Spadaccini): https://sre.google/sre-book/being-on-call/ (
sre-being-on-call.txt). The 25% cap, eight engineers for a primary and secondary at one site, six hours per incident and two per 12-hour shift, quantity against quality.
Related lessons
- Read first: Logs, metrics and traces
- Read first: Deployment strategies and rollback
- Related: Change safety: blast radius, detection, the way back
- Related: The debugging method
- Related: Availability math, single points of failure and failover
- Related: Overload protection
- Related: Circuit breakers and bulkheads
- Related: Failure-mode thinking: what breaks at 10x and when X is down
- Related: Orienting in an unfamiliar codebase fast
- Related: Debugging production systematically
- Related: SLIs, SLOs, error budgets and burn-rate alerts
Checked against the tools and docs as of 2026-10-01.