Cases10 cases

1 to 5 of 10

1. IL-0471 GitHub Actions runs failed or sat queued for 9 hours after a routine deployment's pod replacement saturated capacity

   GitHub2026

   Symptoms

   From 15:05 UTC on 6 August 2026 GitHub Actions workflow runs failed to start, failed partway through or stayed queued for a long time, on both GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Some requests to the Actions REST API returned errors, and some customers saw unexpected rate limiting in their workflows.

   High error rateHigh latency

   Trigger

   A routine deployment to an internal Actions service that processes events and generates Actions jobs replaced pods, and the remaining capacity became saturated.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CI system

   Contributing factor

   No headroomExcessive blast radiusHarmful manual action

   Remediation

   • Expanded capacity of the affected services
   • Throttled incoming webhook-triggered work
   • Increased processing capacity for the backlog of affected events
   • Deployed changes that stopped runners from repeatedly trying to acquire invalid jobs
   • Deployed a fix for self-hosted runners that were not picking up jobs and enabled it incrementally
   • Paused migrations with GitHub Enterprise Importer
   • Restored webhook-triggered Actions workflows to full throughput
   • Rolled back the mitigation that left some ARC runners offline, and recovered those runners by hand
   • Shared CLI and UI steps for customers to clear jobs that could not be retried or canceled

   Action items

   • Improve deployment and capacity safeguards for the affected services
   • Strengthen monitoring for the conditions that preceded the incident
   • Improve the resiliency and recovery of queued work and runner assignment
   • Add automatic recovery for self-hosted runners in upcoming Runner and ARC releases
   • Reduce the risk of cascading failures and speed up recovery during large Actions disruptions

   View case
2. IL-0464 IONOS Managed Kubernetes control planes went unreachable for minutes at a time as their shared etcd grew and fragmented

   IONOS Cloud2026

   Symptoms

   From 14 to 16 March 2026 a subset of customer control planes on IONOS Managed Kubernetes (MK8s) became unavailable again and again, each time for several minutes. While a cluster was unreachable, operations that depend on the Kubernetes API, such as deployments, scaling and health checks, did not work reliably.

   Control plane unresponsiveImage pull failures

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   etcdKubernetes API serverManaged Kubernetes control plane and provider API

   Contributing factor

   Excessive blast radius

   Remediation

   • Defragmented the affected database instances, reclaiming about 3–4 GiB per instance
   • Shortened the database compaction intervals on the affected instances
   • Deployed a fix for the affected AI Model Hub database services
   • Applied final changes to all affected clusters

   Action items

   • Expand monitoring dashboards to show control plane health per database instance
   • Move the highest-volume clusters to dedicated database backends
   • Make incidents of this kind trigger immediate paging
   • Roll the updated compaction interval out to all shared control plane database instances
   • Run automated, scheduled defragmentation jobs on all instances
   • Rebalance clusters across database instances to reduce concentration
   • Contact customers whose clusters write disproportionate data, for example to store large security scan reports outside the control plane database
   • Introduce per-tenant resource quotas and key-count limits on the shared control plane database
   • Re-architect the shared control plane for stronger isolation, with dedicated database instances and better vertical scaling
   • Evaluate full database sharding for customers with consistently high data volumes
   • Hold regular drills on database resource exhaustion and recovery

   View case
3. IL-0350 Hosts in an IONOS TXL cluster lost connectivity when an InfiniBand fabric resweep failed on a full multicast table

   IONOS Cloud2026

   Symptoms

   On 3 March 2026, during a scheduled maintenance to replace a faulty switch in a cluster in IONOS Cloud's TXL data center, monitoring alerts fired and the hosts in that cluster lost network connectivity. Customers saw intermittent network degradation or outages, and the Data Center Designer (DCD) web frontend and the AI Model Hub became unreachable.

   Network unreachableLink flappingService outage

   Trigger

   During a scheduled maintenance to replace a faulty switch, Topology 2 of 2 in the affected cluster was disabled as planned, and a link flap on a switch in Topology 1 then flooded the InfiniBand control plane with alerts and started a fabric resweep.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   InfiniBand fabricNetwork control plane (SDN)BGP routingNIC, cable and switch port linkModel hubDatabase

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   IONOS began investigating monitoring alerts in TXL; the first status update was posted at 11:36 UTC.

   Remediation

   • Switched from the affected control plane to its standby
   • Rebooted the locked-up gateways
   • Recovered Topology 1 from the scheduled maintenance
   • Paused provisioning in the cluster that had a backlog of queued jobs
   • Re-enabled provisioning once network connectivity improved and watched job execution
   • Re-established connectivity for the systems that support the DCD

   Action items

   • Adjusted the control-plane configuration to use less aggressive failover timers and reduced heavy sweep activity, lowering the load on the forwarding table
   • Reduced the number of multicast group memberships to relieve the forwarding table
   • Set up continuous monitoring of forwarding table use and control-plane memory with alerts before capacity limits are reached
   • Move the control plane to dedicated high-performance servers, separate from data-plane traffic
   • Audit IPv6 configurations and IPoIB driver settings
   • Modernise the interconnect fabric, including switches, gateways and drivers
   • Hardened IAM maintenance protocols so that critical identity services keep working when the primary Cloud APIs are temporarily unavailable
   • Move IAM to a dedicated platform without a dependency on the standard managed Kubernetes clusters
   • Introduce a dedicated provisioning provider for DBaaS and Managed Kubernetes
   • Add automated circuit breakers to the provisioning engine against overload and queue buildup from self-healing services
   • Improve visibility and control over job execution and prioritisation in the provisioning queue
   • Change the provisioning queue architecture to decouple services and reduce spillover

   Lessons

   IONOS identified the linking of services through the shared provisioning queue as a key reason the degradation lasted as long as it did. Alongside making each service more robust, it is decoupling the provisioning queue and addressing dependencies between services to reduce the blast radius of future incidents.

   View case
4. 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
5. IL-0070 Critical pods on core nodes evicted when Prometheus began scraping about 200 nodes after a dask-gateway scale-up

   2i2c2023

   Symptoms

   The hub pod of the prod JupyterHub on the leap cluster (leap.2i2c.org) restarted unexpectedly during a large node scale-up, and a user opened a support ticket. The ingress-nginx and proxy pods kept running.

   Pod evictionPods Pending

   Trigger

   A user's dask-gateway workload added about 100 dask-worker nodes within a minute, and Prometheus started scraping the metrics exporters on about 200 nodes.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   PrometheusNode pool

   Contributing factor

   No headroomExcessive blast radiusMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A user support ticket (2i2c Freshdesk ticket 414) about the leap hub; the engineer then looked at Grafana and the cluster's nodes and events.

   Action items

   • Configure CPU and memory requests for the hub and proxy pods (#2127; at least 100m CPU was proposed)
   • Make the Grafana OOMKiller dashboard work (#2213)
   • Move LEAP cloud infrastructure to shared nodes (#2209)
   • Update resource requests and limits, mainly for ingress-nginx and Prometheus (#2324)
   • Decide whether Prometheus should scrape dask worker pods (#2366)

   Lessons

   Prometheus load grows with the number of nodes, so a burst of autoscaled nodes can push a nearly full core node over the edge and evict the pods that matter most. Core pods that request 10m of CPU get a tenth of the CPU share of busy neighbours that request 100m. Kubernetes events expire after an hour, so evidence of OOM kills needs a dashboard that keeps it.

   View case

By root cause1