Cases8 cases

3 to 7 of 8

1. IL-0181 A traffic spike from an external community post pushed product API pods into CPU throttling under a 1-core limit, and an e-commerce product page slowed down while every pod stayed Running

   Kevin2026

   Symptoms

   An e-commerce platform suddenly became slow to respond, worst on the product lookup page, and users began reporting that the page would not open.

   CPU throttlingHigh latency

   Trigger

   A post on the external community Ppomppu linked to the platform and brought a large number of users in a short time, who called the product lookup API heavily.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container CPU limitHorizontal pod autoscaler

   Contributing factor

   Monitoring blind spot

   Detection

   Users reported that the product page would not open. The dashboard showed all pods Running, and the namespace CPU usage near 100% and the CPU usage metrics pointed to throttling.

   Remediation

   • raised the HPA minReplicas from 5 to 10
   • raised the container CPU limit from 1 core to 2 cores

   Action items

   • Keep adjusting the CPU limit to a suitable level through monitoring

   Lessons

   CPU throttling is hard to notice: pods stay Running, nothing restarts and the logs show no clear error, so a pod list does not reveal it and CPU usage metrics do. Settings that had handled expected event traffic became the bottleneck as soon as one external post multiplied the traffic. The author concludes that the team needs more preparation for traffic pattern changes and more thought about resource settings.

   View case
2. IL-0028 Temporal History service latency rose because its pods were CPU-throttled while CPU usage read below 60 percent

   Temporal2023

   Symptoms

   Request latency from the Temporal Server History service, the service that starts workflow executions and records their progress, was higher and less steady than it should be on a self-hosted Kubernetes deployment. The CPU dashboard showed the history pods using less than 60 percent of their CPU, yet the same pods were being throttled.

   CPU throttlingHigh latency

   Trigger

   Normal load on History pods that had a CPU limit of 2 cores on 8-core nodes, with the Go runtime's GOMAXPROCS left at its default of one per node core.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container CPU limitLanguage runtime settingsPrometheus

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A Prometheus query for CPU throttling showed the history pods throttled although their CPU usage read under 60 percent.

   Remediation

   • set the GOMAXPROCS environment variable to 2 to match the 2-core CPU limit

   Action items

   • Set GOMAXPROCS automatically from the Kubernetes CPU limit, from Temporal release 1.21.0

   Lessons

   A CPU usage graph averaged over 15 seconds or more can sit far below 100 percent while a container is being throttled, so throttling needs its own metric. A Go program in a container should have GOMAXPROCS matched to its CPU limit, or to its CPU request when it has no limit. The author recommends not using CPU limits at all.

   View case
3. IL-0205 The GKE cluster autoscaler could not add nodes to GitLab.com's production cluster because Google Cloud ran out of SSD persistent disks in us-east1

   GitLab2021

   Symptoms

   At 08:05 UTC on 2021-06-21 the API service's Apdex (the share of requests that finish within a target time) and Rails request queuing began trending the wrong way. At 09:01 the team found the API deployment unhealthy: it needed more pods for the day's growing traffic, but no new nodes could be added to give it pod capacity. Users saw slow responses; the review found no sign that error rates rose.

   Scale-up failureHigh latencyPods PendingDeploys failing

   Trigger

   Google Cloud ran out of SSD persistent disk stock in us-east1, the region GitLab.com runs in, while the API service needed more nodes for rising user traffic.

   Root cause

   Cloud provider outage

   Component

   Cluster autoscalerNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Monitoring blind spotLimited debug accessOverlapping failures

   Detection

   There was no alert on resource availability. Apdex and Rails queuing began trending the wrong way at 08:05 UTC and an engineer declared the incident in Slack at 08:43; finding the cause took a lot of log digging: cluster autoscaler errors about node pools in backoff, then ZONE_RESOURCE_POOL_EXHAUSTED at the instance-group level, and finally Google Cloud support naming SSD as the exhausted resource.

   Remediation

   • added a node pool that uses pd-standard disks
   • scaled the new node pool by hand across all three zones to relieve the API
   • brought more pd-standard node pools online for the other blocked workloads
   • stopped production deployments and opened a Google Cloud support case about the cluster autoscaler not working with the new node pools
   • changed node pools and nodeSelectors so the remaining workloads ran on pd-standard nodes
   • removed the SSD-backed node pools after a day without problems

   Action items

   • Move Kubernetes services to pd-standard disks (delivery#1837)
   • Capture resource exhaustion errors as a metric

   Lessons

   A cloud region can run out of one specific resource, here SSD persistent disks, and the only error may be a generic ZONE_RESOURCE_POOL_EXHAUSTED that does not name it. GitLab could neither monitor nor reserve resource availability, so detection took 22 hours and the cause came from Google Cloud support. The workloads ran fine on pd-standard disks. A second problem found on the way, a cluster autoscaler that does not fall back to another matching node pool when one cannot scale, slowed the move to the new node pools.

   View case
4. 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
5. IL-0035 Worker nodes went NotReady after a new ElastAlert rule without memory limits used up node memory

   NU.nl2019

   Symptoms

   The NU.nl development team got reports that several services on one of its Kubernetes clusters behaved erratically: occasional error pages, slow responses and timeouts. The affected services were mostly internal tools and dashboards.

   Node NotReadyHigh error rateHigh latencyIntermittent timeoutsMonitoring outageOOMKilled

   Trigger

   A new ElastAlert rule, deployed shortly before from the command line, that fired if the Cloudfront-* Elasticsearch indexes stopped receiving documents; those indexes take a few million requests per hour, and the rule made ElastAlert's memory grow without bound.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Container memory limitkubeletPrometheus

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limitsUnreviewed defaultsNo alert on limitMonitoring blind spotExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   Users reported error pages, slow responses and timeouts from several services; no alert fired.

   Remediation

   • terminated the NotReady nodes one by one so the auto-scaling group replaced them (the new nodes also went NotReady, but Prometheus and Grafana landed on a stable node)
   • found the ElastAlert pods' memory growth on the Grafana pod memory dashboard
   • fixed the ElastAlert problem that caused the memory growth

   Action items

   • Define alerts on resource usage such as CPU, memory and disk space
   • Keep researching an alerting strategy that combines Elasticsearch, Prometheus Alertmanager and New Relic
   • Consider exporting metrics out of the cluster and running Grafana outside it, on EC2 or a separate Kubernetes cluster
   • Either visualise the important metrics in the ELK stack or make Prometheus and Grafana more available, and improve the metrics strategy
   • Set resource limits for ElastAlert through the Helm values
   • Configure namespaces with default memory requests and limits
   • Isolate customer-facing workloads from build, logging and monitoring workloads (a dedicated node group, or later a separate tools cluster)
   • Deploy everything through automation such as Jenkins pipelines, and consider a GitOps approach
   • Deploy through a pipeline that includes a smoke test step
   • Make Kubernetes and cloud infrastructure work part of the team's sprints, picked up by all team members while pairing with more experienced members, and hold workshops that go deep into specific topics

   Lessons

   Fixing the root cause covers only a small part of what an incident can teach; the chain of smaller failures around it is where most of the learning is. A pod without a memory limit can take whole nodes down, so limits need defaults at the namespace level. Monitoring that runs inside the cluster it watches goes blind with it. Changes installed by hand from the command line leave the rest of the team without a record of what changed.

   View case

By root cause5