Cases7 cases

1 to 5 of 7

1. IL-0097 A cluster autoscaler version bump was incompatible with the one cluster still on Kubernetes 1.33, so no scale-up events fired and new nodes were not created

   2i2c2026

   Symptoms

   At 15:10 (Bucharest time) on 2026-03-31 an alert fired for the prod hub on the berkeley-geojupyter cluster on AWS: "[FIRING:1] At least two servers failed to start in the last 30m cluster=berkeley-geojupyter hub=prod (provider=aws immediate action needed)". It opened PagerDuty incident #2057.

   Scale-up failure

   Trigger

   An upgrade merged on 2026-03-30 bumped the cluster autoscaler version, and the new version was incompatible with Kubernetes 1.33, which the berkeley-geojupyter cluster still ran.

   Root cause

   Breaking change in an upgrade

   Component

   Cluster autoscaler

   Contributing factor

   Deferred upgradesUnverified assumption

   Detection

   An alert that at least two servers failed to start in the last 30 minutes fired at 15:10 and opened PagerDuty incident #2057. The report notes it was triggered by an automatic health check run, not by users being unable to start servers.

   Remediation

   • upgraded the cluster's Kubernetes version from 1.33 to 1.34
   • downgraded the cluster autoscaler by one patch version to 9.55.0, the version meant for Kubernetes 1.34

   Action items

   • The change in https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/pull/8008 (the report gives only the link)
   • Use recurrent issues, such as the recurrent-k8s-aws-upgrades workflow, to standardize Kubernetes versions across clusters

   Lessons

   Because the context of the autoscaler bump was fresh, the team went down the right path from the start. The upgrade batches had been designed with only 1.32 clusters in mind, so the one 1.33 cluster was missed and got an incompatible autoscaler. 2i2c notes it was lucky that an automatic health check, not real users, hit the failure first.

   View case
2. IL-0098 After 2i2c moved from ingress-nginx to nginx-ingress, a hub's Ingress took priority over cert-manager's temporary Ingress for the same host, so new hubs could not get TLS certificates

   2i2c2026

   Symptoms

   An attempt to launch a new hub failed because its ingress could not obtain a new TLS certificate. The day before, the same engineer had recreated the support deployment on the 2i2c-aws-us cluster and seen its TLS certificate orders stuck pending.

   Misrouted requestsDeploys failing

   Trigger

   Creating new hub deployments that needed new TLS certificates on clusters recently migrated from ingress-nginx to nginx-ingress.

   Root cause

   Breaking change in an upgrade

   Component

   Ingress controllercert-manager

   Contributing factor

   Change with a delayed effect

   Detection

   An attempt to launch a new hub failed; the engineer had seen certificate orders stuck pending on another cluster the day before and declared an incident.

   Remediation

   • annotated the Ingress objects that need TLS so that cert-manager could edit them in place to complete the ACME challenge

   Action items

   • Follow-up tracked in https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/issues/8016
   • Follow-up tracked in https://github.com/2i2c-org/infrastructure/issues/3278

   Lessons

   Swapping one ingress controller for another can change how Ingress objects that share a host are combined. cert-manager's temporary challenge Ingress depends on that behaviour, so the breakage shows up when a deployment needs a new certificate. 2i2c notes that it got lucky: it had already learned of this possible cause while testing on an internal cluster, and changing the cert-manager configuration was quick.

   View case
3. 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
4. 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
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 cause4