Cases8 cases

1 to 5 of 8

1. IL-0058 Argo CD deleted namespaces shared by several applications, leaving about 97 applications stuck Missing and OutOfSync

   Argo CD users2026

   Symptoms

   After a rolling restart of the Argo CD application-controller, namespaces that several applications shared went into the Terminating state. About 97 applications were then stuck in a Missing/OutOfSync deadlock.

   Resources deleted

   Trigger

   A manual bulk sync with force: true from the Argo CD UI, run during the window after an application-controller restart, on an application whose manifests declared a namespace whose app.kubernetes.io/instance label pointed to a different application.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Argo CD

   Contributing factor

   No safeguard on destructive changeUnverified assumptionHarmful manual action

   Action items

   • Refile the problem as #29739: a manual force sync hard-replaces shared cluster-scoped resources through a tracking-ID conflict, ignoring Prune=false

   Lessons

   The sync option Prune=false only protects the prune path; it does not stop a force sync from deleting and recreating a resource. When two Argo CD applications declare the same namespace or other cluster-scoped resource, force-syncing the application that does not own the tracking label can delete it at any time.

   View case
2. IL-0095 An engineer deleted the prod namespace of the LEAP JupyterHub while believing the kubeconfig pointed at a new cluster, and the hub was down for about an hour

   2i2c2025

   Symptoms

   At 5:00 PM BST on 12 August 2025 a 2i2c engineer declared an incident. While deploying a new cluster called temple and running into NFS issues, the engineer had deleted the prod namespace; the deletion hung, and listing the pods showed many users from a different cluster. The engineer's first message suggested that the kubeconfig had somehow been mutated or corrupted and that some other cluster was being torn down.

   Resources deletedService outage

   Trigger

   While working around a bug in the NFS deployment process for a new hub, an engineer ran a delete of the prod namespace with the kubeconfig context pointing at the LEAP cluster.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   Persistent volumes and stateful setsJobs and CronJobsIngress controllerTerraform

   Contributing factor

   No safeguard on destructive changeNo runbook

   Detection

   The engineer who ran the deletion noticed when it hung and the pod list showed users of another cluster, and declared the incident at 5:00 PM BST, before the uptime check on leap.2i2c.cloud failed at 5:32 PM.

   Remediation

   • deleted the single remaining user pod in prod so the namespace deletion completed
   • killed the nfs-share-creator job that was blocking the deployment
   • redeployed the prod hub with the updated NFS server IP address
   • deleted the prod ingress during the deployment so that users could not start servers mid-deployment

   Action items

   • Write an incident report
   • Write a short incident response document for the case "I deleted prod, what next?"
   • Upgrade jupyterhub-home-nfs and remove the nfs-share-creator job
   • Add opt-in hardening against nested kubeconfig contexts to the deployer system
   • Change the engineer's shell configuration to show distinct kubeconfig contexts more clearly

   Lessons

   Provisioning persistent storage outside Kubernetes with Terraform meant a deleted namespace cost an hour of downtime and no data. The engineer had no visible cue for which kubeconfig context was active, which turned a workaround on a new cluster into a deletion on a production one. The engineer knew the fix but did not feel confident redeploying without first confirming with the tech lead, in another time zone, that there was no risk of losing persistent data, and reaching the tech lead took time.

   View case
3. IL-0192 A Crossplane composition merge-policy change for a TLS policy update switched Kubernetes Services from LoadBalancer to ClusterIP and deleted the load balancers behind about 25% of Grafana Cloud services

   Grafana Labs2025

   Symptoms

   At 08:41 UTC on 18 February 2025, several Grafana Labs application teams noticed that some of their endpoints were no longer available. The investigation quickly found that the load balancers for those endpoints were gone.

   Service outageResources deleted

   Trigger

   A change to the merge policy of a Crossplane composition, made so that the default TLS policy of the load balancers could be overridden, was applied to development, staging and production at the same time.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Configuration templatingCloud load balancer

   Contributing factor

   Unverified assumptionNo staged rolloutExcessive blast radiusNo safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   Application teams noticed at 08:41 UTC that some of their endpoints were no longer available.

   Remediation

   • rolled back the Crossplane composition change
   • recreated the affected Kubernetes Services so that Kubernetes recreated their load balancers

   Action items

   • Add a CI check that blocks a deployment to more than one wave, so any exception to the dev, staging, canary, production order is caught
   • Give higher priority to a more sophisticated wave design that was already under discussion
   • Enable deletion protection on the load balancers, one layer below Crossplane
   • Enable deletion protection on other critical cloud provider resources
   • Develop the Crossplane Managed Resources exporter for change validation and visibility, now in beta testing within Platform engineering; simulated against the change that caused this outage, it shows a clear diff
   • Complete and test support for reconfiguring the TLS policy so application teams can deploy it

   Lessons

   A change that looked small and low-risk had a side effect that only a full end-to-end test through Crossplane and the cloud provider's load balancer controller would have shown; seeing the intended override work was not that test. Staged rollout and blast-radius limits that exist only as process can be skipped, so Grafana Labs moved to enforce waves in CI and to add deletion protection on the load balancers themselves, beneath the Crossplane layer.

   View case
4. IL-0152 An incorrect configuration applied during maintenance made an internal infrastructure cluster automatically delete the control planes of 200 DOKS clusters in FRA1

   DigitalOcean2024

   Symptoms

   At 13:02 UTC on 2024-01-23 DigitalOcean posted that, as of 12:18 UTC, its engineers were investigating an issue with Kubernetes clusters in the FRA1 region and that users might see errors when communicating with their clusters. The control planes of the affected DOKS (DigitalOcean Kubernetes) clusters had become inaccessible.

   Resources deletedControl plane unresponsive

   Trigger

   An incorrect configuration was applied to an internal infrastructure cluster in FRA1 at 12:21 UTC during a maintenance operation.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   etcdKubernetes API server

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationNo safeguard on destructive changeExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   Engineers were investigating errors with Kubernetes clusters in FRA1 as of 12:18 UTC and identified the incorrect configuration as the cause at 12:36.

   Remediation

   • restored each affected cluster's etcd from its latest twice-daily backup
   • restored the stateless control plane components after etcd
   • patched the recovery mechanism after unexpected problems during recovery
   • found and fixed an additional small bug during recovery
   • contacted affected customers directly with further instructions, since some might need to reconfigure Kubernetes resources

   Action items

   • Prevent automatic deletion of infrastructure cluster resources under any circumstances in the production environment

   Lessons

   When managed control planes run as resources in another cluster, one configuration mistake in that cluster can delete hundreds of control planes at once through ordinary automation. The etcd backups limited the damage, but their twice-daily schedule set the worst case at 12 hours of lost control plane state, and the recovery tooling itself needed patching during the incident.

   View case
5. IL-0207 A routine task run from an engineer's local environment switched to production and deleted GitLab.com's Consul release, so Patroni lost Consul and GitLab.com returned 5xx errors to all traffic

   GitLab2022

   Symptoms

   GitLab's monitoring and alerting fired at once. One of the alerts reported a Patroni failover, and users of GitLab.com received 5XX errors; the CDN counted about 13 million requests answered with 503 during the outage.

   Service outageHigh error rateResources deleted

   Trigger

   An engineer ran a routine task with GitLab's tools in a local development environment; during a local deploy or rollback operation the tool's context changed from local development to production, and the change was applied to production.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   Application database

   Contributing factor

   No safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   GitLab's monitoring and alerting fired immediately; one of the alerts reported a Patroni failover.

   Remediation

   • re-applied the Consul release to the production Kubernetes cluster, with manual steps because the tooling did not support the redeploy directly

   Action items

   • Improve the Kubernetes deployment process to reduce the risk of running harmful deployment operations against production from local environments (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/reliability/-/issues/16875)
   • Integrate Teleport with the Kubernetes clusters, which could give SREs a read-only role by default (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-infra/reliability/-/issues/16221)

   Lessons

   A tool that can switch its target from a local environment to production during a deploy or rollback turns routine local work into a production change. GitLab plans to improve its Kubernetes deployment process so that harmful deployment operations are less likely to be run against production from local environments, and to integrate Teleport with its clusters, which could give SREs a read-only role by default. Detection and diagnosis were fast because the alerts led straight from Patroni to its dependency, Consul. Bringing the deleted release back needed manual work, because the tooling did not make the redeploy straightforward, but it was still done relatively quickly.

   View case

By root cause3