Cases8 cases

1 to 5 of 8

1. IL-0136 A deployment that cleared an internal service's caches at peak traffic sent 20 times the normal load to the Azure OpenAI metadata backend in Sweden Central, and health checks that depended on its database restarted instances in a loop for almost six hours

   Microsoft Azure2026

   Symptoms

   From 10:03 UTC on 29 September 2026, requests to Azure OpenAI Service, Foundry Agent Service, Foundry Models and Azure AI services in Sweden Central failed intermittently, took longer, or returned HTTP 500 and 503 errors. At 10:17 UTC service monitoring raised an alert on elevated failure rates for Azure OpenAI Service requests in the region.

   High error rateHigh latencyIntermittent connection failuresIntermittent timeoutsProbe failuresOutbound connection exhaustion

   Trigger

   At about 09:38 UTC a planned deployment of an internal service in Sweden Central cleared that service's caches during the region's peak traffic hours.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   In-memory cacheApplication database

   Contributing factor

   Change during peak hoursRetry stormAutomation amplificationMonitoring blind spotNo runbookHealth check tied to a dependency

   Detection

   Service monitoring detected elevated failure rates for Azure OpenAI Service requests in the region at 10:17 UTC and alerted the engineering teams; engineers were engaged at 10:28 UTC.

   Remediation

   • reconfigured the backend service's automated health check so it no longer depended on remote connectivity, which stopped the restart loop

   Action items

   • Reconfigure the backend service's automated health check so it no longer depends on connectivity to its database layer
   • Add monitoring and alerting on the load and latency of the caching layer used by the backend service
   • Update troubleshooting and procedural guidance for connection exhaustion scenarios for on-call engineers
   • Add throttling and rate limiting to protect the backend service from sudden traffic increases (estimated October 2026)
   • Increase the resource capacity of the caching layer used by the backend service across regions (estimated October 2026)
   • Improve diagnostic metrics and automated detection to identify such issues more quickly (estimated October 2026)
   • Partition the caching layer used by the backend service to increase its throughput (estimated December 2026)

   Lessons

   A health check that depends on a remote dependency turns a dependency problem into a restart loop: instances that cannot reach the database are killed, the remaining ones take more load and retries, and adding instances or resources does not help until the check itself is changed. Clearing a cache during peak traffic can multiply load on the backend behind it, especially when cache-read defects let lookups bypass the cache. Connection exhaustion was hard to see because the existing network and diagnostic metrics did not show it.

   View case
2. IL-0124 Capacity changes queued while a circuit breaker was engaged ran all at once when it was released, taking multiple OpenAI inference engines out of service and raising API error rates

   OpenAI2026

   Symptoms

   Between about 4:26 PM and 4:56 PM PST on 4 March 2026, some OpenAI API requests to several models failed or took longer than usual, and some Codex traffic was affected too. The overall API success rate dropped temporarily.

   High error rateHigh latency

   Trigger

   A protective circuit breaker that had paused some scheduling operations was released, and the infrastructure actions queued during the pause were executed at the same time.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Automated capacity manager

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationChange with a delayed effectNo safeguard on destructive changeMonitoring blind spot

   Remediation

   • manually reassigned infrastructure resources to the affected models
   • brought the removed inference engines back online and reassigned them until error rates returned to normal

   Action items

   • Improve safeguards in the automated capacity management systems so they detect and respond to state drift
   • Improve observability of circuit breakers and scheduling systems so their status and effects are easier to identify
   • Add safeguards so queued actions cannot run in large batches after long pauses
   • Improve monitoring and alerting around capacity reconciliation problems

   Lessons

   Pausing one automated system does not stop the systems that feed it. Changes queued during the pause reflect the state at the time they were queued, and releasing the queue all at once applies those stale decisions together. The fixes OpenAI names are detecting state drift, making circuit breaker status visible, and preventing large batches from executing after a long pause.

   View case
3. IL-0181 A traffic spike from an external community post pushed product API pods into CPU throttling under a 1-core limit, and an e-commerce product page slowed down while every pod stayed Running

   Kevin2026

   Symptoms

   An e-commerce platform suddenly became slow to respond, worst on the product lookup page, and users began reporting that the page would not open.

   CPU throttlingHigh latency

   Trigger

   A post on the external community Ppomppu linked to the platform and brought a large number of users in a short time, who called the product lookup API heavily.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container CPU limitHorizontal pod autoscaler

   Contributing factor

   Monitoring blind spot

   Detection

   Users reported that the product page would not open. The dashboard showed all pods Running, and the namespace CPU usage near 100% and the CPU usage metrics pointed to throttling.

   Remediation

   • raised the HPA minReplicas from 5 to 10
   • raised the container CPU limit from 1 core to 2 cores

   Action items

   • Keep adjusting the CPU limit to a suitable level through monitoring

   Lessons

   CPU throttling is hard to notice: pods stay Running, nothing restarts and the logs show no clear error, so a pod list does not reveal it and CPU usage metrics do. Settings that had handled expected event traffic became the bottleneck as soon as one external post multiplied the traffic. The author concludes that the team needs more preparation for traffic pattern changes and more thought about resource settings.

   View case
4. IL-0028 Temporal History service latency rose because its pods were CPU-throttled while CPU usage read below 60 percent

   Temporal2023

   Symptoms

   Request latency from the Temporal Server History service, the service that starts workflow executions and records their progress, was higher and less steady than it should be on a self-hosted Kubernetes deployment. The CPU dashboard showed the history pods using less than 60 percent of their CPU, yet the same pods were being throttled.

   CPU throttlingHigh latency

   Trigger

   Normal load on History pods that had a CPU limit of 2 cores on 8-core nodes, with the Go runtime's GOMAXPROCS left at its default of one per node core.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container CPU limitLanguage runtime settingsPrometheus

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A Prometheus query for CPU throttling showed the history pods throttled although their CPU usage read under 60 percent.

   Remediation

   • set the GOMAXPROCS environment variable to 2 to match the 2-core CPU limit

   Action items

   • Set GOMAXPROCS automatically from the Kubernetes CPU limit, from Temporal release 1.21.0

   Lessons

   A CPU usage graph averaged over 15 seconds or more can sit far below 100 percent while a container is being throttled, so throttling needs its own metric. A Go program in a container should have GOMAXPROCS matched to its CPU limit, or to its CPU request when it has no limit. The author recommends not using CPU limits at all.

   View case
5. IL-0205 The GKE cluster autoscaler could not add nodes to GitLab.com's production cluster because Google Cloud ran out of SSD persistent disks in us-east1

   GitLab2021

   Symptoms

   At 08:05 UTC on 2021-06-21 the API service's Apdex (the share of requests that finish within a target time) and Rails request queuing began trending the wrong way. At 09:01 the team found the API deployment unhealthy: it needed more pods for the day's growing traffic, but no new nodes could be added to give it pod capacity. Users saw slow responses; the review found no sign that error rates rose.

   Scale-up failureHigh latencyPods PendingDeploys failing

   Trigger

   Google Cloud ran out of SSD persistent disk stock in us-east1, the region GitLab.com runs in, while the API service needed more nodes for rising user traffic.

   Root cause

   Cloud provider outage

   Component

   Cluster autoscalerNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Monitoring blind spotLimited debug accessOverlapping failures

   Detection

   There was no alert on resource availability. Apdex and Rails queuing began trending the wrong way at 08:05 UTC and an engineer declared the incident in Slack at 08:43; finding the cause took a lot of log digging: cluster autoscaler errors about node pools in backoff, then ZONE_RESOURCE_POOL_EXHAUSTED at the instance-group level, and finally Google Cloud support naming SSD as the exhausted resource.

   Remediation

   • added a node pool that uses pd-standard disks
   • scaled the new node pool by hand across all three zones to relieve the API
   • brought more pd-standard node pools online for the other blocked workloads
   • stopped production deployments and opened a Google Cloud support case about the cluster autoscaler not working with the new node pools
   • changed node pools and nodeSelectors so the remaining workloads ran on pd-standard nodes
   • removed the SSD-backed node pools after a day without problems

   Action items

   • Move Kubernetes services to pd-standard disks (delivery#1837)
   • Capture resource exhaustion errors as a metric

   Lessons

   A cloud region can run out of one specific resource, here SSD persistent disks, and the only error may be a generic ZONE_RESOURCE_POOL_EXHAUSTED that does not name it. GitLab could neither monitor nor reserve resource availability, so detection took 22 hours and the cause came from Google Cloud support. The workloads ran fine on pd-standard disks. A second problem found on the way, a cluster autoscaler that does not fall back to another matching node pool when one cannot scale, slowed the move to the new node pools.

   View case

By root cause5