Cases46 cases

34 to 38 of 46

1. IL-0196 Adding a second Redis replica and lowering memory limits in one RedisFailover change restarted the only Redis pod that held data, and Sentinel promoted the empty new replica, erasing the data

   Palark2020

   Symptoms

   Right after an updated RedisFailover resource was rolled out, the large Redis database lost all its data and the service went down; the data had to be restored from a backup taken just before the change.

   Data lossService outage

   Trigger

   A RedisFailover change that raised the number of Redis replicas from one to two and, in the same rollout, lowered the containers' memory requests and limits from 22 GB to 19 GB.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   DatabasePersistent volumes and stateful setsContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   No staged rolloutSingle point of failureUnverified assumption

   Remediation

   • restored the Redis data from the backup prepared before the rollout

   Action items

   • Report the readiness probe flaw to the Redis Operator project and test the developers' fix
   • Reconsider the use of the Spotahome Redis Operator
   • Clean up the Redis databases and fix the application code that created the excess keys
   • Consider Redis built-in clustering and sharding

   Lessons

   Changing the replica count and the pod resources in one rollout turned a seemingly harmless change into a rolling restart of the only pod with data while the new replica was still empty. A readiness probe that only checks that Redis answers a ping does not tell whether a replica has finished syncing. Operators for critical stateful components need to be evaluated for maturity before production use, and the dump.rdb file should be backed up before any change to the Redis cluster.

   View case
2. 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
3. IL-0143 GKE nodes upgraded to certain 1.13 and 1.14 versions had an elevated number of kernel panics, fixed by releases that downgraded the Container-Optimized OS image

   Google Cloud2019

   Symptoms

   Some nodes in Google Kubernetes Engine clusters that had recently been upgraded showed an elevated number of kernel panics. The status page described it as kernel panics following an upgrade in GKE version.

   Node kernel panic

   Trigger

   Upgrading GKE node pools to one of the affected 1.13 or 1.14 versions.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Node operating system imageLinux kernel

   Contributing factor

   –

   Remediation

   • advised affected users to downgrade to a patch release not on the affected list, with support helping Release Channel users
   • released GKE 1.13.11-gke.14, 1.13.12-gke.8, 1.14.7-gke.23 and 1.14.8-gke.12, which downgraded Container-Optimized OS to cos-73-11647-293-0
   • rolled the fixed versions out to node pools with auto-upgrade enabled; clusters on manual upgrades had to upgrade their nodes themselves

   Action items

   • Ship a GKE release with an upgraded kernel that fixes the panics

   Lessons

   Downgrading the node operating system image was used as a temporary mitigation until a kernel fix was available.

   View case
4. 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
5. 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

By root cause1