Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0029 Slow user-facing services from CPU throttling on containers that used far less CPU than their limit

   Buffer2020

   Symptoms

   Services on Buffer's kops-managed cluster on AWS (about 60 nodes and 1500 containers) answered more slowly than they should have. The container throttling metric showed that many containers were being throttled whatever their CPU usage was, including containers that never came close to their CPU limit.

   CPU throttlingHigh latencyNode NotReady

   Trigger

   CPU limits on user-facing services, enforced through CFS quota by a Linux kernel with a bug that throttled containers even when they were well under their limit.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Container CPU limitLinux kernelNode operating system image

   Contributing factor

   Unpatched known bugUnverified assumption

   Detection

   While reviewing the container throttling metric, the team noticed many containers being throttled even though their CPU usage stayed far below their limits.

   Remediation

   • removed CPU limits from all services directly or indirectly on the users' critical path
   • moved those services to dedicated tainted nodes and gave them matching tolerations
   • set each service's CPU request to its peak usage over a few months plus a margin of more than 20%, and set memory requests the same way

   Action items

   • Move nodes to a kernel that contains the CFS throttling fix (4.19 or later), which for Buffer means a kops version whose host image is Ubuntu 20.04
   • After the kernel upgrade, check whether throttling is fully gone and update the post

   Lessons

   A CPU limit can slow a service down even when the service uses a small part of it, because of how the kernel enforces CFS quota on older kernels; the throttling metric shows it, the CPU usage graph does not. Upgrading the kernel is the safer fix. Removing limits works for latency, but only together with honest CPU and memory requests, isolation of the unbounded services, and monitoring of node usage, since unbounded containers can starve the kubelet.

   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 cause2