Incident Library
  • Root cause
  • Component
  • Symptom
  • Contributing factor
  • Case

Cases7 cases

1 to 5 of 7

  1. 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.

    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
    Component
    Contributing factor
    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.

  2. Symptoms

    At 14:22 a Cloud Platform team member noticed failed Docker Hub logins. Fetching an image returned: failed to fetch manifest: Head "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/ministryofjustice/cloud-platform-tools/manifests/2.1": toomanyrequests: too many failed login attempts for username or IP address

    Trigger

    The Docker Hub password was changed as part of LastPass remediation activities while the EKS cluster nodes and Concourse still logged in with the previous password.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    A Cloud Platform team member saw the failed Docker Hub login error at 14:22. The Kuberhealthy daemonset check showed at 14:52 that the cluster could not pull images, and a user reported ErrImagePull in #ask-cloud-platform at 14:54.

    Remediation
    • Changed the Docker Hub password back to the previous value still used by the EKS cluster nodes and Concourse
    • Confirmed with the reporting user that the pod deployed and that cluster image pulls worked again
    Action items
    • Switch from the Docker Hub username and password to a Docker Hub token created specifically for Cloud Platform
    • Rotate the password cleanly out of hours with a graceful recycle of the nodes
    Lessons

    The write-up states no separate lessons. Its review action replaces the Docker Hub username and password with a Docker Hub token created specifically for Cloud Platform.

  3. 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.

    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
    Component
    Contributing factor
    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.

  4. Symptoms

    At 18:56 PDT on 23 June 2022 (01:56 UTC on 24 June) several models went offline at once: some fine-tuned curie and davinci models, the Codex beta models code-davinci-001 and code-cushman-001, the legacy GPT models curie, babbage and ada, and all Embeddings models.

    Trigger

    A destructive operation on one of the three production clusters, caused by human error that the existing safeguards did not catch, took the whole cluster offline.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Remediation
    • re-allocated the models from the lost cluster to the remaining two clusters
    • rebuilt the VPN link with Azure support after losing the connection to AKS during cluster setup
    • built workarounds with Azure support after losing the connection to Azure Private Link
    • tore down the cluster and rebuilt it from scratch after the upgraded Kubernetes version broke the ingress
    • moved traffic back into the rebuilt cluster between 05:30 and 06:30 PDT
    Action items
    • Add checks and locks so that this and similar production-critical infrastructure cannot be modified by accident
    • Add better visibility into the operations being performed and make parts of the system more lexicographically distinct
    • Keep working with Azure on the AKS network connectivity issues so they do not disrupt new cluster operations
    • Update playbooks with the new cluster failure modes and change the setup steps for new clusters and infrastructure
    • Upgrade Kubernetes systematically and set aside time so the clusters do not fall behind again
    • Shard fine-tuned models across multiple clusters and work towards more automatic cross-cluster replication
    • Distribute and replicate Azure Blob Storage so fine-tuned models load faster and more reliably
    • Finish rolling out node-to-node caching to relieve Azure Blob Storage bottlenecks
    • Change how model weights are stored so they are more efficient and faster to load
    Lessons

    Losing one of three clusters exhausted the GPU headroom, and GPUs could not be added on short notice, so full recovery depended on bringing the same cluster back. Rebuilding it exposed a deferred Kubernetes upgrade: the newer version broke the ingress, and because AKS cannot downgrade there was no way back except a full rebuild. Recovering many large models at once is limited by the bandwidth of the storage they load from, and the caches that normally hide this do not help when everything moves to a different cluster.

  5. Symptoms

    After the last old Elasticsearch pod, elasticsearch-0, was deleted and came back on a new, empty persistent volume, `_cat/nodes` run inside that pod listed a single node: elasticsearch-0 itself, marked as master. The same command run inside elasticsearch-1 listed the other five nodes, elasticsearch-1 to elasticsearch-5, with elasticsearch-2 as master.

    Trigger

    Deleting the elasticsearch-0 pod and its PVC so that it restarted on an empty volume of the new StorageClass.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    The engineer running the migration checked `_cat/nodes` after elasticsearch-0 restarted and saw it alone in a cluster of its own.

    Remediation
    • scaled the three deployments of workers writing to Elasticsearch down to zero
    • listed elasticsearch-0, elasticsearch-1 and elasticsearch-2 under initial_master_nodes in the elasticsearch ConfigMap and removed the cluster.initial_master_nodes environment variable from the StatefulSet
    • saved and deleted the elasticsearch discovery Service and deleted the PVC of elasticsearch-0 while the rolling update ran
    • set initial_master_nodes to elasticsearch-3, elasticsearch-4 and elasticsearch-5, created an empty PVC for elasticsearch-0 and deleted all six pods
    • recreated the discovery Service from the saved manifest, after which the six nodes formed one cluster with every index green
    Action items
    • Restore the original initial_master_nodes values in the ConfigMap and restart all pods again
    • Move all shards to nodes 0, 1 and 2 and scale the cluster down from six nodes to three
    • Commit all the manual changes to the repository
    Lessons

    A setting that only matters when a cluster first starts, such as Elasticsearch's cluster.initial_master_nodes, can sit in a Helm chart template rather than in the ConfigMap that was reviewed. When a pod named in it starts with an empty data directory, it can bootstrap a new cluster beside the existing one. The author's conclusion is that a migration plan like this one breaks on any surprise and needs a plan B ready. Before running it in a more important environment, rehearse it in a test environment configured like production, and either schedule downtime or move the load to another cluster: stop the writers, take a fresh backup, then move the data.

Check your cluster for this

These 7 cases involve Ingress controller and Node pool. kubegap audits a Kubernetes cluster for gaps like these, read-only, from Claude Code or Codex; its checks cite public reports like the ones in this library.

By root cause1

Operator error7 cases

  1. 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
  2. IL-0018 A Docker Hub password rotation left EKS nodes and Concourse locked out of Docker Hub and unable to pull images
  3. 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
  4. IL-0115 One of OpenAI's three production AKS clusters went offline through a human error, and rebuilding it took 10½ hours because an AKS Kubernetes upgrade broke the ingress and AKS cannot be downgraded
    OpenAI2022
  5. IL-0197 Moving a three-node Elasticsearch StatefulSet to new persistent volumes split the cluster in two, because the Helm chart hardcoded cluster.initial_master_nodes to elasticsearch-0
    Palark2021
  6. IL-0089 A test cluster deletion script run with the kube context pointing at the live-1 production cluster deleted its ingress controller, monitoring, logging, cert-manager, kiam and external-dns
  7. IL-0054 All ingress traffic lost while draining a GKE node pool because the load balancer only targeted new nodes without ingress-nginx pods