Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0471 GitHub Actions runs failed or sat queued for 9 hours after a routine deployment's pod replacement saturated capacity

   GitHub2026

   Symptoms

   From 15:05 UTC on 6 August 2026 GitHub Actions workflow runs failed to start, failed partway through or stayed queued for a long time, on both GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Some requests to the Actions REST API returned errors, and some customers saw unexpected rate limiting in their workflows.

   High error rateHigh latency

   Trigger

   A routine deployment to an internal Actions service that processes events and generates Actions jobs replaced pods, and the remaining capacity became saturated.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CI system

   Contributing factor

   No headroomExcessive blast radiusHarmful manual action

   Remediation

   • Expanded capacity of the affected services
   • Throttled incoming webhook-triggered work
   • Increased processing capacity for the backlog of affected events
   • Deployed changes that stopped runners from repeatedly trying to acquire invalid jobs
   • Deployed a fix for self-hosted runners that were not picking up jobs and enabled it incrementally
   • Paused migrations with GitHub Enterprise Importer
   • Restored webhook-triggered Actions workflows to full throughput
   • Rolled back the mitigation that left some ARC runners offline, and recovered those runners by hand
   • Shared CLI and UI steps for customers to clear jobs that could not be retried or canceled

   Action items

   • Improve deployment and capacity safeguards for the affected services
   • Strengthen monitoring for the conditions that preceded the incident
   • Improve the resiliency and recovery of queued work and runner assignment
   • Add automatic recovery for self-hosted runners in upcoming Runner and ARC releases
   • Reduce the risk of cascading failures and speed up recovery during large Actions disruptions

   View case
2. IL-0234 An onboarding operator deployed without its scope file installed dev applications on other IONOS Kubernetes clusters

   IONOS Cloud2026

   Symptoms

   On 8 May 2026 IONOS Cloud reported "K8s Control Planes not available": some Managed Kubernetes customers in DE/TXL, DE/FRA and DE/FRA/2 had trouble connecting to the control plane and saw degraded Kubernetes functionality. Between 15:22 and 16:12 (UTC+2) applications meant for a new internal development cluster were installed on other customer clusters, which were also modified.

   Control plane unresponsiveImage pull failures

   Trigger

   A routine internal operation onboarded a new Managed Kubernetes development cluster. The scoping configuration file for the onboarding operator failed to reach the deployment branch because of a merge conflict, and at the same time a second change removed the operator from the exclusion list, which deployed it at once.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   CI systemContainer registry and its credentials

   Contributing factor

   No configuration testsExcessive blast radiusMissed in review

   Remediation

   • Corrected the onboarding operator so it needs an explicit namespace configuration before acting on any cluster
   • Reconfigured the deployment system to fail deployments when required configuration files are missing
   • Rolled back the identified changes on the affected resources
   • Ran a recovery script, validated in staging, that removed all unintended installations and updates from the affected clusters

   Action items

   • Add a mandatory CI/CD step that confirms all required configuration files reached the target branch before any deployment starts
   • Require additional peer review and change management approval for every deployment that touches production, whatever its size
   • Give teams a way to inform each affected customer in time about the status of post-incident cleanup

   Lessons

   IONOS treats the unintended change to cluster configurations as a failure of the controls that should keep internal operations from affecting customer environments.

   View case

By root cause2