Cases7 cases

4 to 7 of 7

1. IL-0190 Cortex distributors kept a stuck connection to a dead etcd leader after a Kubernetes upgrade terminated its node, failing writes to Hosted Prometheus for 12 minutes

   Grafana Labs2020

   Symptoms

   About a minute after the etcd leader changed, two replicas of the Cortex distributor started logging "context deadline exceeded" when they tried to read keys from etcd. Writes from some customers that landed on those two replicas failed, while the other distributor replicas kept working, so the service saw an error rate of about 20% on writes to the London region of Hosted Prometheus.

   High error rateIntermittent timeouts

   Trigger

   A scheduled Kubernetes version upgrade abruptly terminated the node that ran the etcd leader at 11:19:00 UTC.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   etcdNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsNo safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   An SLO-based alert paged the on-call engineer at 11:31, 11 minutes after the errors started. At a 20% error rate the monthly SLA would have taken about 18 hours to breach.

   Remediation

   • Restarted the two affected Cortex distributor replicas at 11:32, which stopped the errors

   Action items

   • Enable gRPC keepalive probes in the Cortex etcd client (DialKeepAliveTime 10s, DialKeepAliveTimeout, PermitWithoutStream)
   • Make the Kubernetes upgrade process terminate pods and machines gracefully, including the etcd pods managed by the etcd operator

   Lessons

   When a node dies abruptly, clients holding TCP connections to it are not told; without keepalive probes an etcd client can keep sending requests into a dead connection long after a new leader exists. A failover that works on the server side still needs clients that detect the dead peer. Node replacement during cluster upgrades should drain pods gracefully, including pods owned by operators that the upgrade scripts do not know about, and should give instances enough time to shut down.

   View case
2. IL-0015 A GKE cluster's /16 pod address range ran out at 256 nodes, leaving new pods Pending and node scale-ups failing

   loveholidays2020

   Symptoms

   A colleague wrote in Slack that his application was taking a long time to deploy. A deployment that normally finishes in minutes had been running for about an hour: about half of the new pods were running and serving traffic, and the other half were Pending.

   Pods PendingIP address exhaustionScale-up failure

   Trigger

   The cluster reaching 256 nodes, the most its /16 pod secondary range could hold at 256 addresses per node; every further node creation failed.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   VPC subnet or pod address rangeCluster autoscalerNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsUnknown limit

   Detection

   A colleague reported in Slack that a deployment was slow; the pending pods' events and the cluster autoscaler status ConfigMap showed the exhausted IP space.

   Remediation

   • lowered the maximum pods per node on selected node pools, cutting IP consumption by about 30%
   • moved some node pools to larger instance types

   Action items

   • Lower the maximum pods per node on node pools that do not run many pods
   • Use larger instance types in some node pools

   Lessons

   In a VPC-native GKE cluster the number of nodes, not the number of pods, uses up the pod range: by default each node reserves 256 addresses, so even a /16 is full at 256 nodes. Maximum pods per node and node size are the practical levers; larger nodes pack better but take more pods down when they fail.

   View case
3. IL-0054 All ingress traffic lost while draining a GKE node pool because the load balancer only targeted new nodes without ingress-nginx pods

   DevOps Hof2019

   Symptoms

   While the old nodes of a GKE cluster were being drained to move workloads to a newly created node pool, none of the services in the cluster could be reached through ingress-nginx any more.

   Service outageProbe failures

   Trigger

   Cordoning and draining the old node pool removed those nodes from the GCP load balancer backend while the ingress-nginx pods were still running on them.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   Ingress controllerkube-proxyNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsUnverified assumption

   Detection

   The team noticed during the drain that no service in the cluster was reachable through ingress-nginx.

   Remediation

   • deleted the nginx-ingress-controller pods still running on the old nodes so they were rescheduled on the new, ready nodes

   Lessons

   With externalTrafficPolicy: Local, the load balancer can only reach nodes that run an ingress pod, and cordoned nodes leave the load balancer backend immediately; if the ingress pods stay behind on cordoned nodes, all ingress traffic stops. Before any change that might touch traffic, look twice into the documentation.

   View case
4. IL-0055 A failing CronJob with the default concurrency policy piled up thousands of restarting pods and took down a cluster

   Target2018

   Symptoms

   A Kubernetes cluster went down after one CronJob kept failing and its pods piled up. Because each failed run kept restarting instead of being replaced by the next one, the pods accumulated into the thousands. The speaker's arithmetic for a job scheduled every minute that fails for three days is 4,320 restarting pods.

   Service outage

   Trigger

   A CronJob kept failing.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Jobs and CronJobsNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsAutomation amplification

   Lessons

   When deploying a CronJob, set its concurrency policy to Replace or Forbid; with the default, failing runs accumulate and restart together. An application should handle a missing dependency with probes and bounded back-off rather than crash in a loop, which also keeps it from hammering a dependency that is already struggling.

   View case

By root cause5