Cases7 cases

4 to 7 of 7

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-0202 A burst of queries and database writes exhausted connection pools and memory on Honeycomb's ingest hosts, and Kubernetes crash-loop back-off kept failed hosts offline so ingest capacity stayed too low to recover

   Honeycomb2023sev1

   Symptoms

   Standard alerting paged Honeycomb's on-call engineers about the performance and stability of event ingestion, and the automated load-shedding mechanisms tripped and sent further notifications. The status page described a higher than normal error rate and response time on the ingestion service.

   High error rateHigh latencyContainer crash loopService outageDatabase overload

   Trigger

   An abnormally large number of queries arrived from many separate connections within a few minutes.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Application databaseIn-memory cache

   Contributing factor

   Retry stormAutomation amplification

   Detection

   Standard alerting notified the on-call engineers about ingestion performance and stability, and the automated load-shedding mechanisms added notifications when they tripped. The first status post, about alerts on a higher than normal error rate and response time, went up at 18:28 PST (02:28 UTC), 13 minutes after the 02:15 UTC start.

   Remediation

   • Scaled the ingest fleet up manually and aggressively
   • Cut off most ingest for a few minutes so the ingest hosts could come back with enough capacity
   • Temporarily lowered the rate limits for the most aggressive traffic sources until their traffic subsided

   Action items

   • Keep the ingest fleet scaled up to prevent a repeat while longer-term fixes are worked on
   • Decide on the projects that will address these failure paths

   Lessons

   Load shedding and auto-scaling were in place, yet a burst that arrived faster than the cache could spread its writes still took the ingest hosts down. During recovery, Kubernetes' crash loop back-off worked against the operators: the hosts that had failed stayed offline while the fleet needed every host. Clients that retry whole OTel batches after a partial drop can multiply traffic many times over, so per-source rate limits were what finally stabilised ingest.

   View case
3. IL-0208 A GitLab chart bump that renamed Kubernetes Service and Deployment ports made the GCP load balancer reconfigure, and GitLab.com slowed down and returned intermittent 50x errors

   GitLab2022

   Symptoms

   At 07:53 UTC on 2022-03-31 the rate of 50x errors on GitLab.com went up, and at 07:54 PagerDuty paged the engineer on call (EOC) about the rising error rate. Users saw slow pages and intermittent 50x error pages. The incident lists the Web, API, Git and Pages services as affected.

   High error rateHigh latencyIntermittent timeouts

   Trigger

   A k8s-workloads/gitlab-com pipeline deployed merge request !1643, a GitLab chart bump that changed the port names of Kubernetes Services and Deployments (related to the Prometheus service and pod monitors), starting with the canary environment gprd-cny at 07:49 UTC.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   HelmCloud load balancerHAProxy

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplification

   Detection

   A PagerDuty alert on the rising error rate paged the EOC at 07:54 UTC, one minute after the 50x errors went up. The engineer deploying the change noticed the errors and linked them to it.

   Remediation

   • drained the canary environment and re-enabled it after twenty minutes
   • cancelled the deployment jobs for clusters c and d before they started
   • drained gprd-us-east1-d in HAProxy and re-enabled it five minutes later
   • raised the minimum replica count above 100 (merge request !1650)
   • drained gprd-us-east1-c in HAProxy, deployed the change to it, and re-enabled it
   • reverted the minimum replica increase (merge request !1652)

   Action items

   • Implement graceful draining of a whole regional cluster
   • Create a Chatops command that puts PagerDuty into maintenance mode

   Lessons

   Renaming ports on Kubernetes Services and Deployments behind a GCP load balancer made the load balancer reconfigure, and requests were slow or timed out until the new configuration had fully applied, which took minutes. GitLab notes that alerting worked well. The follow-up work is a way to drain a whole regional cluster gracefully and a Chatops command to put PagerDuty into maintenance mode.

   View case
4. IL-0073 Intermittent Kafka connectivity overloaded Docker daemons, set off a node rescheduling cascade and poisoned the Consul gossip mesh

   Target2019sev1

   Symptoms

   An upgrade of the network subsystem under Target's datacenter OpenStack, meant to cause only a brief disruption, ran into problems and left network connectivity disrupted for several hours. Kafka, which runs on that OpenStack, became intermittently available.

   Node NotReadyLoad imbalanceHigh latencyCredentials unavailable

   Trigger

   A network subsystem upgrade in the datacenter OpenStack infrastructure disrupted connectivity for several hours and made Kafka intermittently available.

   Root cause

   Dependency failure

   Component

   Container runtimeService discoveryTelemetry agentCredential broker for pods

   Contributing factor

   Excessive blast radiusAutomation amplificationSingle point of failureUnpatched known bug

   Remediation

   • enabled gossip encryption on Consul so messages from the poisoned mesh were rejected
   • stabilized the deployment engine and redeployed the development environment with encryption, terminating instances without it
   • upgraded Consul in place to 1.2.3 and then to 1.3.0

   Action items

   • Reduce how much of an outage a single Docker daemon can cause, together with running smaller and more numerous clusters

   Lessons

   Smaller and more numerous clusters limited the damage: the smaller development clusters and production were not hit the same way as the one large cluster, and dev and prod on one cluster would have been far worse. A Docker daemon shared by many workloads is a brittle failure point. Per-workload logging and metrics sidecars were judged the right design; a shared cluster-level agent would almost certainly have made the problem worse and harder to fix.

   View case

By root cause5