Incident Library
  • Root cause
  • Component
  • Symptom
  • Contributing factor
  • Case

Cases4 cases

1 to 4 of 4

  1. 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.

    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
    Component
    Contributing factor
    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.

  2. Symptoms

    On 2025-03-12 from 10:58 UTC, alerts for high backend response times came in, and the MediaWiki deployments mw-api-int, mw-parsoid and mw-jobrunner, which serve MediaWiki for non-user-facing purposes, showed high latency and database errors. The External Storage cluster, whose hosts store the compressed text of wiki page revisions, had a sharp rise in load and connections. The same happened again on 2025-03-13 from 11:15 UTC.

    Trigger

    At 10:44 UTC on 12 March a Scap deployment of the PHP 8.1 rollout for mw-api-int, mw-parsoid and mw-jobrunner was run with the flag -Dbuild_mw_container_image:False; the rollout was deployed with Scap again at 11:15 UTC on 13 March.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Alerts for high backend response times started at 10:58 UTC on 12 March, 14 minutes after the Scap deployment; 2 on-call engineers were paged. The MediaWikiMemcachedHighErrorRate alert that pointed at the cause fired only briefly because its log pipeline was overloaded.

    Remediation
    • Deployed a patch to cirrus-streaming-updater that reduced SUP parallelism
    • Reduced the concurrency of the categoryMembershipChange job in changeprop-jobqueue
    • On 12 March, reverted 1126607 and 1126650 and re-ran Scap
    • On 13 March, rolling-restarted changeprop-jobqueue
    • Rolling-restarted mw-api-int
    • Disabled the categorymembership job in changeprop-jobqueue
    • Reverted 1127476 and 1127478
    • Redeployed mw-api-int to pick up the revert
    • Increased the number of mw-api-int replicas
    • Redeployed mw-jobrunner to pick up the revert
    • Redeployed mw-parsoid to pick up the revert
    Action items
    • Reduce the number of messages sent through channel:Memcached during failures
    • Add helm rollback functionality to Scap
    • Decide whether Scap should update helmfile-defaults when -Dbuild_mw_container_image:False is set
    • Consider removing envvars.inc from MediaWiki images
    • Consider "Why" dashboards that give an overview of a group of related components together with relevant links to follow
    • Coordinate incident responders better
    • Be able to work with MediaWiki developers during incidents
    Lessons

    The write-up puts the weight not on the technical root cause but on why the team could not see, even after the 12 March incident, that three MediaWiki deployments were running without Memcached. Alert dashboards showed what was happening, such as many busy PHP workers, but not why; dashboards linking components that affect each other, such as SQLBlobStore keys and External Storage, would have helped. The alert that pointed in the right direction did not stay firing and would probably have been lost among 78 others. The incident coordinator could not tell who was working on what or who had joined or left, the channels were noisy, the external impact was judged more critical than it was, and trace.wikimedia.org was not used although it might have helped.

  3. Symptoms

    Overnight into 26 March 2019 (PDT), every Prow test job that needed a GCP project from Boskos, the Kubernetes test-infra service that hands out GCP projects to test jobs, failed. The required job pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce failed on every run, so no pull request could be merged in kubernetes/kubernetes for just over nine hours, and other projects saw similar failures.

    Trigger

    At 23:04 PDT the node running the only Boskos pod was drained to be replaced with a 1.13 node during the upgrade of the Prow clusters from Kubernetes 1.11 to 1.13. The replacement pod started from the StatefulSet's current spec, which named a newer Boskos image containing the bug.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Users reported the failure on GitHub at 02:50 and on Slack at 05:16 and 06:27, and an engineer saw the Slack reports on waking at 07:16. The Boskos monitoring dashboard showed the failure, but no alert caught it.

    Remediation
    • Built and deployed a new Boskos image with the bug fixed
    • Cleaned up the GCP projects that had been left open
    Action items
    • Change the Boskos configuration so that deployments actually take effect (#11956)
    • Automate Boskos deploys (#11957)
    • Improve alerting on Boskos status (#11953)
    Lessons

    The write-up lists what went poorly: a ten-hour upgrade was started shortly after 17:00 when on-call coverage ended at 18:00; deployments were not checked to confirm that something had actually rolled out; the Boskos StatefulSet was not set up to perform updates, so changing its spec left the old pod running; the December change appears never to have been tested; and Boskos was deployed by hand, unlike most of Prow, which left more room for error. Once people were available, the problem was fixed quickly.

  4. Symptoms

    On 8 February 2019 the Kubernetes project's Prow instance at prow.k8s.io became very slow: its controllers took about five minutes to respond to the hook, bot commands such as the cat command stopped working, and the prow.k8s.io site was hard to reach. GitHub status was normal, and the Prow service nodes were found running above 100% of CPU and memory.

    Trigger

    At 13:20 PST an auto-generated bump PR for Prow was merged and deployed, and Prow started scheduling workloads onto the service cluster.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    While working on a PR, a maintainer noticed the bot's cat command failing, found GitHub status normal, learned on Slack that the Prow nodes were above 100% CPU and memory, and then found 600 pending pods in the test-pods namespace.

    Remediation
    • Rolled Prow back to v20190206-b01b288 and cleaned up the pods and ProwJobs in the service cluster
    • Applied the revert by hand with kubectl apply after the deployment permission was missing
    • Sent a fix, PR 11209, so the client no longer overwrites a provided literal default client
    • Rolled Prow back to v20190125-2aca69d, from before the bug was introduced
    • Cleaned up the wrongly scheduled pods and ProwJobs again and confirmed Prow was healthy
    Action items
    • Find out why the bug did not show deterministically
    • Be more careful with sweeping Prow changes, with more end-to-end tests or a real staging Prow
    Lessons

    The behaviour was not deterministic, and the change was deployed on a Friday afternoon. Prow instances are set up differently, for example in how build clusters are defined, so another project's Prow running a version fine does not show it is safe for the Kubernetes Prow, which needs a staging environment that looks like it.

Check your cluster for this

These 4 cases involve CI system and In-memory cache. kubegap audits a Kubernetes cluster for gaps like these, read-only, from Claude Code or Codex; its checks cite public reports like the ones in this library.

By root cause1