Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0110 A Grafana Agent pod's high memory use and crash-looping Hangfire pods drove a Kubernetes node into system OOM and NotReady, twice in one day

   DFDS2024

   Symptoms

   At 10:01 UTC on 2024-03-13 a Kubernetes node entered NotReady state, with CPU requests at 78% and memory requests at 82%. An alert fired in Slack at 10:03 and was picked up at 10:05. An attempt to SSH into the node at 10:13 failed because it was unresponsive; it started responding again at 10:19.

   Node NotReadyContainer crash loopOOMKilledMonitoring outage

   Trigger

   Pods of a dev container that used Hangfire to trigger jobs failed with OOM and crash-looped on a node where a Grafana Agent pod was already using a lot of memory.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Telemetry agentContainer memory limitApplication database

   Contributing factor

   Excessive blast radiusNo resource requests or limitsHarmful manual actionMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A Slack alert fired two minutes after the node went NotReady and was picked up two minutes later; the second node's NotReady at 15:03 also raised a Slack alert.

   Remediation

   • marked the EC2 instance unhealthy so a new node started
   • cordoned and force-drained the NotReady node and terminated its EC2 instance
   • removed the new LimitRange from the Grafana Agent namespace and restarted the Grafana Agent pod
   • scaled the dev container to 0 replicas, after which EC2 network traffic returned to normal
   • after the second NotReady, scaled the dev container to 0 replicas again and added a new node
   • emailed the team that owns the dev container, which confirmed it was working on a fix

   Action items

   • Move grafana-agent to the monitoring node group
   • Add alerts for when bandwidth across the cluster reaches a certain threshold
   • Investigate whether memory limits can be set on the grafana-agent Helm chart
   • Investigate grafana-agent memory usage
   • Ask Grafana support whether grafana-agent should use a PVC
   • Consider pushing node logs to Loki with limited retention
   • Create a wiki page with common metrics and log queries to check when investigating issues with Kubernetes nodes

   Lessons

   Dev workloads mixed with production let one crash-looping dev container take down nodes that production also used, and a monitoring agent outside its dedicated node group added to the memory pressure. Scaling the suspect container back up before its owners had fixed it brought the failure back on the replacement node. The team also noted that action items from earlier post-mortems need follow-up, and that knowledge of useful CloudWatch metrics had not been shared, which made the diagnosis harder.

   View case
2. IL-0064 CPU-heavy pods packed onto one Google Cloud node drove it to kernel panics, and the crash moved from node to node until the site was down

   Moonlight2019

   Symptoms

   On Friday, January 18, Moonlight's API began returning occasional errors that looked like connection problems with its Redis database. The API checks Redis on every authenticated request to validate the session. At the same time the Kubernetes monitoring reported some nodes and pods as unresponsive.

   High error rateIntermittent connection failuresNode NotReadyService outageSustained high node CPU

   Trigger

   The Kubernetes scheduler put several CPU-heavy pods on the same node, including all three replicas of the website and the server-side rendering pods.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Pod scheduling and placementLinux kernelApplication database

   Contributing factor

   Single point of failureUnverified assumptionAutomation amplification

   Detection

   API errors that looked like Redis connectivity problems, and Kubernetes monitoring that showed nodes and pods as unresponsive. Google Cloud Support later found the link between sustained 100% CPU and kernel panics.

   Remediation

   • added anti-affinity rules to all major deployments so their pods spread across nodes

   Action items

   • Keep working with Google Cloud support to find and fix the cause of the node kernel panics

   Lessons

   Three replicas give no fault tolerance if the scheduler places them all on one node; anti-affinity rules make the spread explicit. A node failure that comes from the workload itself moves with the workload when the scheduler reschedules it.

   View case

By root cause1