Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0433 Shifting API traffic from EC2 to EKS on Fargate overloaded two CoreDNS pods and caused mass name-resolution errors

   MonotaRO2023

   Symptoms

   When MonotaRO raised the share of requests for the remaining endpoints of its backend API sent to EKS from 1% to 25%, Sentry filled with errors saying the API could not reach the database and outside services. The errors were about DNS name resolution, and the traffic had to be shifted back to the EC2 version.

   DNS resolution failuresHigh error rate

   Trigger

   MonotaRO raised the share of requests for the remaining API endpoints routed by the ALB to the EKS version from 1% to 25%.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CoreDNSClient-side DNS resolver and cacheContainer CPU limitHorizontal pod autoscalerPod termination

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsNo resource requests or limitsUnrepresentative stagingUnverified assumption

   Detection

   Sentry showed a large number of errors about connecting to the database and outside services right after the traffic share was raised.

   Remediation

   • Shifted the requests back to the EC2 version to stop the errors
   • Added an HPA to autoscale the CoreDNS pods as a stopgap, which let the migration to EKS finish

   Action items

   • Set ndots to 1 through dnsConfig in the application Deployments
   • Set cache 600 in the Corefile in the coredns ConfigMap to lengthen the CoreDNS cache TTL
   • Add lameduck 30s to the CoreDNS health plugin so CoreDNS keeps serving while it is scaled in
   • Consider reducing the differences between production and staging, weighed against cost

   Lessons

   MonotaRO assumed that a managed service would not cause problems and so skipped researching other companies' migrations, load testing and monitoring. Staging differed from production in its network layout, so ndots differed between them, and staging databases could not take a high-load test. Looking at the CoreDNS logs and resolv.conf instead of guessing found that ndots:5 made lookups of outside names try every search domain first.

   View case
2. IL-0175 Lowering a JVM pod's CPU request from 2 to 1 pushed memory past the 90% alert because the JVM treats a cgroup v1 cpu.shares value of exactly 1024 as unset and sized Reactor Netty threads from the node's 36 CPUs

   Hyperconnect2022

   Symptoms

   During a DevOps review of resource usage across microservices, the team lowered resources.requests.cpu from 2 to 1 for notification-preferences, a Spring WebFlux service not yet used in production. A few minutes later an alarm fired because memory usage was above 90%. Neither the memory allocation nor the JVM's GC arguments had been changed.

   Memory pressure

   Trigger

   The team lowered resources.requests.cpu for the notification-preferences deployment from 2 to 1 as part of resource optimisation, with no CPU limit set.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Language runtime settingsContainer CPU limit

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limits

   Detection

   A memory usage alarm above 90% fired a few minutes after the CPU request was lowered.

   Remediation

   • set -XX:ActiveProcessorCount=1 in JAVA_OPTIONS so the JVM uses one processor regardless of the cgroup values

   Action items

   • Write an internal notice about the issue

   Lessons

   On cgroup v1, a JVM in a pod with a CPU request of exactly one core and no CPU limit sees every CPU of the node, because cpu.shares 1024 is read as unset. Thread pools sized from availableProcessors(), such as Reactor Netty's I/O workers, grow accordingly and use more memory. When lowering requests for JVM services without a CPU limit, set -XX:ActiveProcessorCount or a CPU limit explicitly. Later JDKs ignore CPU requests for this calculation altogether.

   View case

By root cause2