Cases8 cases

5 to 8 of 8

1. IL-0191 A label selector accidentally added to the Loki distributor Service matched only the new pods of a rollout, which took all write traffic, were OOM-killed and stalled the rollout

   Grafana Labs2022

   Symptoms

   During a rollout of the Grafana Loki distributor Deployment in one Grafana Cloud Logs environment, the write path went down for about 25 minutes. The newly started distributor pods were OOM-killed over and over, never passed their health and readiness checks, and the rollout stopped making progress.

   Service outageOOMKilledLoad imbalanceProbe failures

   Trigger

   Step 1 of moving the Loki ring off a separately deployed key-value store onto embedded memberlist added a new label, gossip_ring_member: 'true', to the distributor pods and Service, together with a small config change, and the change required a rollout of the distributors.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Configuration templatingService discoveryContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsIgnored early signalUnrepresentative staging

   Detection

   The first clue was kubectl get pods and the kube_deployment_status_replicas_updated metric showing that only 16 of 140 distributor pods had been updated.

   Remediation

   • scaled the distributor Deployment out horizontally so the load spread over more pods with the new label and the rollout could continue
   • reverted the migration step to end the outage
   • set service_ignored_labels:: [$._config.gossip_member_label] and passed it to k.util.serviceFor so the label is no longer copied into the Service selector

   Action items

   • Update the function that generates a Service from a Deployment or StatefulSet to handle edge cases, including this one

   Lessons

   A Service whose selector is built by copying every label of a workload changes which pods it matches as soon as a new label is added. During a rollout it then matches only the new pods, which receive all the traffic before there are enough of them. A few errors during a rollout in other environments hid the problem, because those environments gave distributors more memory and could absorb the shift. Manifest diffs kept for every pull request made it possible to see that the Service selector had changed.

   View case
2. IL-0094 Student pods filled the shared nodes of a JupyterHub cluster and starved the hub's core pods, freezing the hub

   2i2c2020

   Symptoms

   At 08:52 PM IST a report came in from WER that many students could not access the JupyterHub and that it was frozen; pages were stuck and nothing was usable. A rise in activity was visible by 09:02 PM, but the usual fixes, such as opening an incognito window and restarting servers, did not help.

   Service outageSustained high node CPU

   Trigger

   WER students' pods used a good chunk of their memory limit (tests had shown they almost always use just under 1G of their 2G limit, against a 512M guarantee) on nodes shared with the hub's core pods.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Node poolContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limitsUnverified assumptionExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   WER reported stuck pages and students unable to reach the hub in a GitHub issue (2i2c-org/docs#27).

   Remediation

   • removed memory overcommit for the WER students
   • raised resource guarantees for all core pods, which restarted them and moved some to a new node

   Action items

   • Put user pods in a separate pool so they do not create pressure on the core pods (infrastructure#89)
   • Set limits on the support infrastructure (Prometheus, Grafana, ingress) as well (infrastructure#90)
   • Document and think about overcommit ratios for memory usage (infrastructure#91)
   • Set up better Grafana dashboards to monitor resource usage (infrastructure#92)
   • Document how people can get kubectl access to the cluster so others can look into issues too (infrastructure#87)

   Lessons

   Core pods without resource guarantees get whatever is left on a node, so when user pods on the same nodes fill the CPU and memory, the hub that serves everyone freezes. The memory overcommit ratio has to come from measured use: WER students used just under 1G against a 512M guarantee, which a 4x overcommit could not hold.

   View case
3. IL-0199 A non-essential container exceeding its memory limit made GitHub's production pods unavailable, and their restarts failed because a DNS maintenance change had left the clusters unable to reach the image registry

   GitHub2020

   Symptoms

   At 08:18 UTC on 13 July 2020, production Kubernetes pods began to be marked unavailable. The loss of pods spread through the clusters and reduced capacity until GitHub.com services went down.

   OOMKilledImage pull failuresService outage

   Trigger

   A container in the production pods exceeded its memory limit and was terminated; a routine DNS maintenance operation completed earlier had left the clusters unable to reach the image registry.

   Root cause

   DNS or network fault

   Component

   Container memory limitContainer registry and its credentials

   Contributing factor

   Overlapping failuresHarmful manual actionSingle point of failure

   Remediation

   • restarted the process with the cached DNS records so the clusters could reach the registry
   • fetched the container images, redeployed and recovered the services

   Action items

   • Improve monitoring so pod restarts cannot fail again in the same pattern
   • Minimise the dependency on the image registry
   • Expand validation during DNS changes
   • Re-evaluate all existing Kubernetes deployment policies
   • Improve progressive deployments so the impact of a deployment can be evaluated incrementally

   Lessons

   A container that production traffic does not need can still take pods out of service, because a pod is available only when all of its containers are healthy. ImagePullPolicy Always turns every container restart into a registry dependency, so an unrelated DNS change that breaks registry access turns a one-minute self-healing event into a long outage, and a mass redeploy spreads it.

   View case
4. IL-0196 Adding a second Redis replica and lowering memory limits in one RedisFailover change restarted the only Redis pod that held data, and Sentinel promoted the empty new replica, erasing the data

   Palark2020

   Symptoms

   Right after an updated RedisFailover resource was rolled out, the large Redis database lost all its data and the service went down; the data had to be restored from a backup taken just before the change.

   Data lossService outage

   Trigger

   A RedisFailover change that raised the number of Redis replicas from one to two and, in the same rollout, lowered the containers' memory requests and limits from 22 GB to 19 GB.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Application databasePersistent volumes and stateful setsContainer memory limit

   Contributing factor

   No staged rolloutSingle point of failureUnverified assumption

   Remediation

   • restored the Redis data from the backup prepared before the rollout

   Action items

   • Report the readiness probe flaw to the Redis Operator project and test the developers' fix
   • Reconsider the use of the Spotahome Redis Operator
   • Clean up the Redis databases and fix the application code that created the excess keys
   • Consider Redis built-in clustering and sharding

   Lessons

   Changing the replica count and the pod resources in one rollout turned a seemingly harmless change into a rolling restart of the only pod with data while the new replica was still empty. A readiness probe that only checks that Redis answers a ping does not tell whether a replica has finished syncing. Operators for critical stateful components need to be evaluated for maturity before production use, and the dump.rdb file should be backed up before any change to the Redis cluster.

   View case

By root cause4