Cases7 cases

1 to 5 of 7

1. IL-0548 Buildkite's EKS Prometheus server was killed for memory again and again, so services stopped scaling and jobs lagged

   Buildkite2026

   Symptoms

   On 20 May 2026 a subset of Buildkite customers saw delays in notification delivery, build dispatch and the metrics services. The status page first reported delays to notifications for all customers and later narrowed it to a subset of customers.

   High latencyOOMKilledMonitoring outageAutoscaler misbehaviour

   Trigger

   Autoscaling during Buildkite's migration of production services from AWS Fargate to AWS EKS raised the number of pods that Prometheus tracked, and with it the memory the Prometheus server needed.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   PrometheusContainer memory limitNode pool

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limits

   Remediation

   • Moved the load of the affected services back to AWS Fargate by following prepared documentation
   • Scaled up the services of a few customers with very large backlogs further by hand

   Action items

   • Upsize the underlying system nodes
   • Set higher requests and limits for the Prometheus server so it can handle more load
   • Review all new EKS resources and set any missing requests and limits
   • Add observability and monitors for EKS pod and node health

   View case
2. IL-0099 User servers on 2i2c's Earthscope hub took over 15 minutes to start and kernels were killed during a workshop, because a profile option guaranteed 8 GB of memory with no limit on 32 GB nodes

   2i2c2025

   Symptoms

   On 12 May 2025 at 20:15 EEST a Freshdesk ticket reported that users' servers on the Earthscope hub were taking more than 15 minutes to start and that their kernels were being killed. It happened during a workshop and also affected other instructors using the hub; a second report said a short course of about 30 users was having major problems.

   Pod eviction

   Trigger

   A workshop with about 30 users on a profile option that guaranteed 8 GB of memory and set no memory limit on 32 GB nodes.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container memory limitNode pool

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limits

   Detection

   A Freshdesk support ticket from the community at 20:15 EEST, brought to the team's attention in the #support-freshdesk Slack channel at 20:49.

   Remediation

   • ran a helm rollout and hub redeploy, which partly improved server starts
   • made the 'medium' profile available and raised its memory guarantee to reduce overcommitment
   • pre-warmed the cluster with 15 nodes for the 30-user workshop
   • set explicit memory limits, with the guarantee equal to the limit, on the community's small-node profile options (https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/pull/6047)

   Action items

   • Write an incident report
   • Hold an internal retrospective about the incident (https://github.com/2i2c-org/meta/issues/2194)

   Lessons

   A memory guarantee without a limit lets a user server grow into memory that other pods on the same node were counting on, and on a shared node that ends with users' pods evicting each other. Setting the guarantee equal to the limit removes the overcommitment. For a known workshop, pre-warming enough nodes ahead of time keeps server start times short.

   View case
3. 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 limitDatabase

   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
4. IL-0094 Student pods filled the shared nodes of a JupyterHub cluster and starved the hub's core pods, freezing the hub

   2i2c2020

   Symptoms

   At 08:52 PM IST a report came in from WER that many students could not access the JupyterHub and that it was frozen; pages were stuck and nothing was usable. A rise in activity was visible by 09:02 PM, but the usual fixes, such as opening an incognito window and restarting servers, did not help.

   Service outageSustained high node CPU

   Trigger

   WER students' pods used a good chunk of their memory limit (tests had shown they almost always use just under 1G of their 2G limit, against a 512M guarantee) on nodes shared with the hub's core pods.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Node poolContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limitsUnverified assumptionExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   WER reported stuck pages and students unable to reach the hub in a GitHub issue (2i2c-org/docs#27).

   Remediation

   • removed memory overcommit for the WER students
   • raised resource guarantees for all core pods, which restarted them and moved some to a new node

   Action items

   • Put user pods in a separate pool so they do not create pressure on the core pods (infrastructure#89)
   • Set limits on the support infrastructure (Prometheus, Grafana, ingress) as well (infrastructure#90)
   • Document and think about overcommit ratios for memory usage (infrastructure#91)
   • Set up better Grafana dashboards to monitor resource usage (infrastructure#92)
   • Document how people can get kubectl access to the cluster so others can look into issues too (infrastructure#87)

   Lessons

   Core pods without resource guarantees get whatever is left on a node, so when user pods on the same nodes fill the CPU and memory, the hub that serves everyone freezes. The memory overcommit ratio has to come from measured use: WER students used just under 1G against a 512M guarantee, which a 4x overcommit could not hold.

   View case
5. IL-0026 Kubernetes nodes hit SystemOOM because fluentd-sumologic log shipper pods had no memory limits

   Blue Matador2019

   Symptoms

   On a Saturday at 5:12 pm, Blue Matador's own monitoring raised a SystemOOM event for one node in the production Kubernetes cluster. Four minutes later a second warning reported a low EBS Burst Balance on that node's root volume. CloudWatch data showed the burst balance had actually bottomed out at 5:02 pm, before the memory event; the warning arrived late because EBS metrics lag 10 to 15 minutes.

   OOMKilled

   Trigger

   Memory use of the fluentd-sumologic log shipper pods grew until the node ran out of memory; log volume in Sumo Logic had been steady, so a burst of logs was not the cause.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Telemetry agentContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limitsIgnored early signal

   Detection

   Blue Matador's own monitoring product alerted on the SystemOOM event, followed minutes later by a low EBS Burst Balance warning for the same node.

   Remediation

   • restarted all fluentd-sumologic pods so they started with low memory
   • set RUBY_GC_HEAP_OLDOBJECT_LIMIT_FACTOR to 0.9 on the fluentd-sumologic pods
   • added memory requests of 128Mi and limits of 1024Mi, and CPU requests of 100m and limits of 250m, to the fluentd-sumologic pods

   Action items

   • Apply default resource limits and resource quotas so that every pod runs with requests and limits

   Lessons

   When checking for restarted pods, look in every namespace, not only the application one. Set resource requests and limits on every pod, third-party ones in particular, so that one workload cannot exhaust a node. Investigate side signals such as the disk I/O spike while the logs still exist.

   View case

By root cause2