Cases6 cases

3 to 6 of 6

1. IL-0182 Too few CoreDNS replicas on EKS were overloaded during traffic spikes, raising latency and cutting the network for task pods, and the over-provisioned, tightly spread CoreDNS pods added later blocked Karpenter consolidation

   이언철2024

   Symptoms

   When traffic changed sharply, CoreDNS came under heavy load, and the cluster saw network problems and a sudden rise in latency. The horizontal pod autoscaler then added pods, database connections surged, and the impact spread to the whole service.

   High latencyIntermittent connection failuresAutoscaler misbehaviour

   Trigger

   Sharp changes in traffic loaded the small number of CoreDNS pods beyond what they could handle.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CoreDNSKarpenterHorizontal pod autoscalerPod scheduling and placement

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationHarmful manual action

   Remediation

   • Set up the Cluster Proportional Autoscaler for CoreDNS with nodesPerReplica and coresPerReplica chosen for the instance types in use
   • Spread CoreDNS with soft topologySpreadConstraints (ScheduleAnyway) instead of anti-affinity so Karpenter could consolidate nodes
   • Added alert thresholds on CoreDNS error rate, panics, request duration and request rate
   • Deployed NodeLocal DNSCache so each node answers DNS from a local cache and forwards misses to the main CoreDNS

   Lessons

   A fixed, small number of CoreDNS pods cannot follow a cluster whose nodes and pods change quickly with traffic, and the damage spreads: DNS latency triggers autoscaling, which in turn floods the database with connections. Simply adding many CoreDNS replicas created a different problem, because with tainted nodes and a maxSkew: 1 spread constraint the pods piled onto a few nodes and blocked Karpenter consolidation. Scaling CoreDNS in proportion to the cluster and putting a DNS cache on every node handled both.

   View case
2. IL-0163 An API change that slipped through a gap in automated testing made LKE clusters resize to the wrong number of nodes and added billable worker nodes to customer accounts

   Linode2023

   Symptoms

   Resizing an LKE cluster produced an incorrect number of nodes, so some customer clusters were resized in unexpected ways and the extra worker nodes were billed to the customer accounts. The clusters themselves kept functioning. Linode's first status update, at 05:07 UTC on 1 June 2023, advised customers to avoid resizing their clusters if possible.

   Autoscaler misbehaviour

   Trigger

   At about 16:00 UTC on 31 May 2023 a change to the API that caused LKE clusters to scale improperly was pushed to production.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   Node pool

   Contributing factor

   Gap in automated tests

   Detection

   The first status update, at 05:07 UTC on 1 June, said Linode had been made aware of an issue when resizing LKE clusters, about 13 hours after the change went out.

   Remediation

   • advised customers to avoid resizing their clusters
   • deployed a hotfix at 09:40 UTC on 1 June that corrected the scaling behaviour
   • left the extra worker nodes in place to avoid disrupting customer workloads
   • contacted affected customers by ticket about credit adjustments and further mitigation

   Action items

   • Audit the automated tests
   • Add pre-deployment checklist items so the same failure does not happen again

   Lessons

   An API change that alters scaling behaviour resized customer clusters and added cost while the clusters themselves kept working; Linode announced the issue about 13 hours after the change went out. Removing the extra nodes would have disrupted workloads, so the cost was handled through credits instead.

   View case
3. IL-0209 A too-high HPA CPU target kept GitLab.com web pods from scaling up as traffic moved from VMs to Kubernetes, breaching the web latency SLO for 15 minutes

   GitLab2021

   Symptoms

   The web service breached its latency SLO at 07:30 UTC and its Apdex dropped: some requests to the GitLab.com web front end slowed down for about 15 minutes. This happened while web traffic was being shifted from virtual machines to the web pods on Kubernetes, and the pods did not scale up as the traffic arrived.

   High latencyAutoscaler misbehaviour

   Trigger

   Shifting web traffic from VMs to Kubernetes pods during the GitLab.com web migration.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Horizontal pod autoscaler

   Contributing factor

   Unverified assumption

   Detection

   The web latency SLO breach at 07:30 UTC; an engineer declared the incident in Slack at 07:40.

   Remediation

   • Lowered the target CPU utilisation of the web pods' autoscaler to a more conservative value (merge request gitlab-com/gl-infra/k8s-workloads/gitlab-com!1149)

   Action items

   • Adjust the target utilisation for the web pods (gitlab-com/gl-infra/k8s-workloads/gitlab-com!1149)

   Lessons

   When traffic is moved onto pods that rely on CPU-based autoscaling, a CPU target set too high can keep the pods from scaling as the traffic arrives; GitLab fixed it by setting a more conservative target.

   View case
4. IL-0014 A GKE upgrade to a withdrawn version stalled on slow drains and a stuck node pool, then broke an ingress and confused the HPA

   loveholidays2019

   Symptoms

   On the evening of a long-overdue upgrade of a loveholidays production GKE cluster from 1.10.X to 1.12.5-gke.10, planned to take 2 to 2.5 hours, the master upgrade and the first two 7-node NodePools went smoothly. After that the NodePool upgrades slowed to a crawl. Each node is cordoned, drained and upgraded in turn. Even a 14-node cluster at about 5 minutes per node took over an hour, and with about 100 more nodes to go, some of them taking over 15 minutes to drain, the sequential drains were too slow to finish at a reasonable hour.

   Upgrade stallPods PendingScale-up failureService outageAutoscaler misbehaviour

   Trigger

   A manual upgrade of the GKE masters and NodePools from 1.10.X to 1.12.5-gke.10, two versions at once, on 19 March 2019; GKE's release notes of 14 March had already said that version was no longer available for new clusters or master upgrades because masters showed elevated error rates, but it could still be selected.

   Root cause

   Cloud provider outage

   Component

   GKE control planeNode poolCluster autoscalerIngress controllerHorizontal pod autoscaler

   Contributing factor

   Unrepresentative stagingOverlapping failuresIgnored early signal

   Detection

   The slow drains, zombie nodes and stuck NodePool were seen by the engineer running the upgrade; the broken Ingress was noticed after the upgrade and explained by Google support; the HPA problem was noticed the next day.

   Remediation

   • drained the remaining NodePool nodes ahead of the upgrade with kubectl drain --ignore-daemonsets --delete-local-data
   • deleted the zombie instances from the managed instance group with gcloud compute instance-groups managed delete-instances
   • cancelled the stuck UPGRADE_NODES operation with gcloud beta container operations cancel
   • used kubectl port-forward in place of the broken internal Ingresses
   • scaled down the older of two active ReplicaSets, or triggered a dummy deployment, to bring the HPA back

   Action items

   • Alert when a HorizontalPodAutoscaler is at 70% and at 100% of its capacity
   • Alert when a deployment has had two active ReplicaSets for 30 minutes and for 60 minutes
   • Re-evaluate termination grace periods that were set to arbitrary large values
   • Read the GKE release notes before every cluster upgrade
   • Use auto-upgrade in non-production environments, and manual cluster upgrades with automatic node upgrades in production
   • Keep environments as identical as possible, including resource names

   Lessons

   Read the release notes before upgrading: the target version had been withdrawn five days earlier. Drain time depends on pod configuration, so emptyDir volumes, long grace periods and missing disruption budgets turn a NodePool upgrade into hours. Pre-production only catches problems like the ingress bug if it matches production down to resource names. Auto-upgrades in non-production surface problems early, and a mix of manual cluster upgrades and automatic node upgrades in production keeps clusters current without much effort.

   View case

By root cause5