Cases3 cases

1 to 3 of 3

1. IL-0048 DNS lookups timed out in a large EKS cluster when CoreDNS hit the 1024 packets-per-second link-local limit, driven by sudo hostname lookups

   unknown2025

   Symptoms

   CI jobs failed now and then because a hostname could not be resolved. The failures came from tensorstore, appeared on several different instances and did not repeat consistently. The error read: "./tensorstore/util/result.h:420: Status not ok: status(): UNAVAILABLE: CURL error Could not resolve hostname: Could not resolve host: company-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com".

   DNS resolution failuresIntermittent timeouts

   Trigger

   An administrative pod running with host networking called sudo in a loop. Each sudo call looked up the node's own hostname, and with ndots:5 and four search domains every lookup became five queries, for both A and AAAA records.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CoreDNSClient-side DNS resolver and cacheVPC DNS resolver

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitUnreviewed defaults

   Detection

   Reports of flaky CI jobs that could not resolve an S3 bucket hostname, followed by i/o timeout errors in the CoreDNS logs.

   Remediation

   • added 'Defaults !fqdn' in /etc/sudoers.d/00-no-fqdn (mode 440) to the container image so sudo stopped looking up the hostname

   Lessons

   Traffic from CoreDNS to the VPC DNS resolver is limited to 1024 packets per second per interface, and drops show up only as UDP timeouts; the linklocal_allowance_exceeded counter in ethtool shows them. Names that are not fully qualified are multiplied by the search domains under ndots:5, and AAAA lookups double them again. sudo looks up the host's own name on every call unless 'Defaults !fqdn' is set.

   View case
2. IL-0083 Intermittent 5xx errors in a multi-tenant Kubernetes cluster came from internal DNS: the node-local dnsmasq hit its 150 concurrent query limit, did not cache cluster.local answers, and ndots search lookups flooded CoreDNS

   Adevinta2023

   Symptoms

   On a Friday afternoon a tenant of SCHIP, Adevinta's multi-tenant Kubernetes runtime, reported a spike of HTTP 5xx errors in some of its services. The drops in quality of service came back periodically through the following days, each one short, and were reported mostly around midnight.

   High error rateDNS resolution failuresHigh latency

   Root cause

   DNS or network fault

   Component

   CoreDNSClient-side DNS resolver and cacheTelemetry agent

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsUnknown limitIgnored early signalUnverified assumption

   Detection

   A tenant reported a spike of HTTP 5xx errors in some of its services; the DNS Latency SLI had already been degraded for some time without being acted on.

   Remediation

   • raised the dnsmasq concurrent query limit from 150 to 1500
   • added a CoreDNS header block that sets the ra and aa flags and clears rd, so dnsmasq caches cluster.local answers
   • configured dnsmasq on each node to answer NXDOMAIN for unresolvable search-domain names instead of forwarding them to CoreDNS
   • changed the fluent-bit log router hostname to a fully qualified name
   • asked the affected tenants to use fully qualified names for internal calls

   Lessons

   The DNS Latency SLI had shown the problem long before anyone looked at it. An SLO only protects you when its SLIs are trusted and a drop is investigated. The investigation took a month partly because several on-call groups worked on it separately, without one place for observations and hypotheses, and sometimes chased hypotheses already discarded. Disprove one hypothesis before starting the next, and collect data the metrics system lacks: DNStop showed the garbage lookups that no dashboard did. With ndots:5, short service names multiply DNS traffic; a node-local cache only helps if it can cache the cluster DNS answers at all.

   View case
3. IL-0001 Cluster-wide DNS outage after CoreDNS pods were OOM-killed again and again under a burst of DNS queries

   Zalando2019

   Symptoms

   Customers of the Zalando Fashion Store got a high rate of errors on all web product pages and outfit pages for more than an hour. The errors came from the main data aggregation layer service, which runs in one of Zalando's Kubernetes clusters.

   High error rateDNS resolution failuresOOMKilledMonitoring outage

   Trigger

   Calls from the aggregation layer to a single, not very important downstream service started timing out. The aggregation layer returned 404s for them, clients retried, and the resulting spike in requests became a spike in DNS queries to CoreDNS.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CoreDNSContainer memory limitClient-side DNS resolver and cache

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitNo cachingRetry stormUnreviewed defaultsExcessive blast radiusMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   The on-call engineer for the aggregation layer phoned the on-call Kubernetes engineer. Automatic paging did not happen because the cluster's monitoring and alerting ran inside the cluster and failed along with DNS. The Kubernetes engineer then saw that the CoreDNS pods were being OOM-killed.

   Remediation

   • Raised the CoreDNS memory requests and limits by hand from 100Mi to 2000Mi

   Action items

   • Introduce a more resilient DNS setup: CoreDNS fronted by dnsmasq on every node
   • Improve high-level alerting from outside the clusters, so that a cluster problem is known before or at the same time as applications are affected
   • Improve incident response processes and tooling so that any on-call engineer can escalate directly to other teams when automatic paging fails, for example through a chat bot

   Lessons

   The Kubernetes DNS setup was far from resilient enough: a single application could take down DNS for everything in the cluster. The blast radius of one application sending more DNS queries should be limited to one node at most, ideally to single pods. Known Kubernetes DNS problems, such as Linux kernel races in conntrack handling and the ndots 5 problem, were familiar to the team and partly mitigated, but their combined effect on the DNS infrastructure was worse than the team had understood. Monitoring that runs inside the cluster was not robust enough: when the cluster's DNS broke, it could not page anyone, and recovery took longer than it should have.

   View case

By root cause2