Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. 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
2. IL-0054 All ingress traffic lost while draining a GKE node pool because the load balancer only targeted new nodes without ingress-nginx pods

   DevOps Hof2019

   Symptoms

   While the old nodes of a GKE cluster were being drained to move workloads to a newly created node pool, none of the services in the cluster could be reached through ingress-nginx any more.

   Service outageProbe failures

   Trigger

   Cordoning and draining the old node pool removed those nodes from the GCP load balancer backend while the ingress-nginx pods were still running on them.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   Ingress controllerkube-proxyNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsUnverified assumption

   Detection

   The team noticed during the drain that no service in the cluster was reachable through ingress-nginx.

   Remediation

   • deleted the nginx-ingress-controller pods still running on the old nodes so they were rescheduled on the new, ready nodes

   Lessons

   With externalTrafficPolicy: Local, the load balancer can only reach nodes that run an ingress pod, and cordoned nodes leave the load balancer backend immediately; if the ingress pods stay behind on cordoned nodes, all ingress traffic stops. Before any change that might touch traffic, look twice into the documentation.

   View case

By root cause2