Cases17 cases

12 to 16 of 17

1. IL-0012 CPU limits and an unpatched kernel CFS quota bug throttled multi-threaded services into stalls, failed health checks and timeouts

   Omio2020

   Symptoms

   For about six months, applications on Omio's Google Kubernetes Engine clusters stalled at random: they got stuck, stopped answering health check requests or lost network connections, and nothing the team looked at explained why.

   CPU throttlingProbe failuresHigh error rateHigh latencyIntermittent timeoutsIntermittent connection failures

   Trigger

   Multi-threaded workloads running with CPU limits on nodes whose kernel did not yet have the fix for a known CFS quota bug that causes unnecessary throttling.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Container CPU limitLinux kernelkubelet

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitMonitoring blind spotUnpatched known bug

   Detection

   Months of random stalls and failed health checks led the team to read the cgroup cpu.stat throttling counters inside the pods, which showed far more throttling than the limits should allow.

   Remediation

   • removed CPU limits until the kernel with the CFS bug fix was deployed across all clusters

   Action items

   • Deploy the kernel with the CFS quota bug fix across all clusters
   • Monitor utilisation, saturation and error metrics, API latency and error rates to confirm the change behaves as expected

   Lessons

   A CPU limit is a time quota per 100 ms period, not a share of cores, so a multi-threaded container can be stopped for most of each period long before it uses the cores it was given, and a kernel bug can make that worse. Throttling is invisible in standard Kubernetes metrics and has to be read from the cgroup counters. Removing limits trades away protection against a container that takes a whole node, which is only acceptable when runtimes are tuned.

   View case
2. IL-0013 The conntrack table filled up on downsized GKE nodes and a high-traffic aggregation proxy saw climbing connection resets

   loveholidays2020

   Symptoms

   Shortly after a round of changes, loveholidays saw connectivity problems and raised error rates on its aggregation service. The service is a proxy between two other services of more than 100 instances each, handles over 10,000 requests per second continuously and can spike to four times that.

   Connection resetsHigh error rateIntermittent connection failures

   Trigger

   Three changes together: a change in service architecture, halving the RAM of the nodes that run the aggregation service, and sharding a downstream service, which doubled the number of connections to track.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   conntrack tablekube-proxyNode poolHAProxy

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitNo capacity planningNo alert on limit

   Detection

   Rising error rates and climbing connection reset errors in HAProxy, then node_exporter conntrack metrics compared with their limit.

   Remediation

   • moved the aggregation service to nodes with more RAM
   • limited the number of aggregation service pods per node

   Action items

   • Alert when conntrack table use goes above 75%, with (node_nf_conntrack_entries / on (pod) node_nf_conntrack_entries_limit / on (pod) group_right kube_pod_info) > 0.75

   Lessons

   The conntrack limit is tied to node memory, so resizing a node pool silently resizes the connection table, and on GKE the ratio did not match the commonly cited formula. A high-traffic proxy on small nodes can exhaust it, and the symptoms are connection resets and timeouts, so conntrack use needs its own metric and alert.

   View case
3. IL-0062 Intermittent 502 errors behind a GKE Ingress because pods shut down before the load balancer stopped sending them traffic

   Ravelin2019

   Symptoms

   After Ravelin moved its API layer from VMs into its GKE cluster behind a Kubernetes Ingress, the integration tests occasionally received 502 errors.

   Intermittent connection failuresStale endpoint routing

   Trigger

   Pods behind the Ingress being removed by their controller, as happens during rolling deploys and scaling.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Ingress controllerPod termination

   Contributing factor

   Unverified assumption

   Detection

   Integration tests occasionally received 502 errors.

   Lessons

   Removing a pod's endpoint and signalling the pod happen at the same time, and an ingress can take a long time to catch up. A pod behind an ingress should keep serving after SIGTERM until its grace period ends, and the grace period should be longer than the load balancer's reprogramming time.

   View case
4. IL-0011 HAProxy ingress piled requests onto the same pods because a Go template visited the backend map in sorted pod IP order

   Skyscanner2019

   Symptoms

   On a Sunday, a team using one of Skyscanner's Kubernetes clusters manually paged the out-of-hours Kubernetes support because their service showed elevated latency, worst at the p90 and maximum levels.

   High latencyLoad imbalanceOOMKilledIntermittent connection failures

   Trigger

   Upgrading the HAProxy ingress controller to v0.6 and going back from Service virtual IPs to individual pod IPs as backends, on the understanding that the sort-backends flag introduced in v0.5, false by default, meant backends were randomly shuffled.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Ingress controllerHAProxyConfiguration templating

   Contributing factor

   Unrepresentative stagingUnverified assumptionIgnored early signal

   Detection

   A cluster user manually paged the out-of-hours Kubernetes support about elevated latency; Prometheus queries then showed the uneven request distribution across pods.

   Remediation

   • switched the affected service from pod IPs back to the Service virtual IP through a config change in the internal deployment tool Slingshot
   • patched the controller to keep each backend's servers in an insertion-ordered slice and changed the template to iterate over that slice
   • tested the patch in sandbox clusters and rolled it out to the production clusters

   Action items

   • Run the internal controller patch in production and return to pod IPs as the default backends
   • Raise the problem upstream with a GitHub issue and pull request
   • Test changes to cluster components against the specific behaviour and conditions that matter

   Lessons

   The team already knew that sorted backends cause hot-podding and still did not test the new flag well enough to see that it did not work; changes to cluster components need tests aimed at the exact behaviour that matters, under conditions like production. A keyword can behave differently in different parts of a language: range over a map is unordered in Go code but sorted in text/template. A small cluster component can do outsized harm to every user of the cluster and, in the end, to customers.

   View case
5. IL-0064 CPU-heavy pods packed onto one Google Cloud node drove it to kernel panics, and the crash moved from node to node until the site was down

   Moonlight2019

   Symptoms

   On Friday, January 18, Moonlight's API began returning occasional errors that looked like connection problems with its Redis database. The API checks Redis on every authenticated request to validate the session. At the same time the Kubernetes monitoring reported some nodes and pods as unresponsive.

   High error rateIntermittent connection failuresNode NotReadyService outageSustained high node CPU

   Trigger

   The Kubernetes scheduler put several CPU-heavy pods on the same node, including all three replicas of the website and the server-side rendering pods.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Pod scheduling and placementLinux kernelDatabase

   Contributing factor

   Single point of failureUnverified assumptionAutomation amplification

   Detection

   API errors that looked like Redis connectivity problems, and Kubernetes monitoring that showed nodes and pods as unresponsive. Google Cloud Support later found the link between sustained 100% CPU and kernel panics.

   Remediation

   • added anti-affinity rules to all major deployments so their pods spread across nodes

   Action items

   • Keep working with Google Cloud support to find and fix the cause of the node kernel panics

   Lessons

   Three replicas give no fault tolerance if the scheduler places them all on one node; anti-affinity rules make the spread explicit. A node failure that comes from the workload itself moves with the workload when the scheduler reschedules it.

   View case

By root cause6