Cases8 cases

5 to 8 of 8

1. IL-0029 Slow user-facing services from CPU throttling on containers that used far less CPU than their limit

   Buffer2020

   Symptoms

   Services on Buffer's kops-managed cluster on AWS (about 60 nodes and 1500 containers) answered more slowly than they should have. The container throttling metric showed that many containers were being throttled whatever their CPU usage was, including containers that never came close to their CPU limit.

   CPU throttlingHigh latencyNode NotReady

   Trigger

   CPU limits on user-facing services, enforced through CFS quota by a Linux kernel with a bug that throttled containers even when they were well under their limit.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Container CPU limitLinux kernelNode operating system image

   Contributing factor

   Unpatched known bugUnverified assumption

   Detection

   While reviewing the container throttling metric, the team noticed many containers being throttled even though their CPU usage stayed far below their limits.

   Remediation

   • removed CPU limits from all services directly or indirectly on the users' critical path
   • moved those services to dedicated tainted nodes and gave them matching tolerations
   • set each service's CPU request to its peak usage over a few months plus a margin of more than 20%, and set memory requests the same way

   Action items

   • Move nodes to a kernel that contains the CFS throttling fix (4.19 or later), which for Buffer means a kops version whose host image is Ubuntu 20.04
   • After the kernel upgrade, check whether throttling is fully gone and update the post

   Lessons

   A CPU limit can slow a service down even when the service uses a small part of it, because of how the kernel enforces CFS quota on older kernels; the throttling metric shows it, the CPU usage graph does not. Upgrading the kernel is the safer fix. Removing limits works for latency, but only together with honest CPU and memory requests, isolation of the unbounded services, and monitoring of node usage, since unbounded containers can starve the kubelet.

   View case
2. IL-0056 Calls from EKS pods to services behind an NLB in another VPC failed intermittently because the AWS VPC CNI did source NAT on the node

   MindTickle2020

   Symptoms

   On the Saturday the production cluster was moved from kops to EKS, the platform became very slow and too unstable to keep running, and the team reverted.

   Intermittent connection failuresHigh latency

   Trigger

   Production was moved from a kops cluster using Weave networking to a new EKS cluster using the AWS VPC CNI, without external SNAT enabled.

   Root cause

   DNS or network fault

   Component

   AWS VPC CNI

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsUnverified assumption

   Detection

   The team lead saw the platform behaving very slowly after the switch to EKS and phoned the author.

   Remediation

   • reverted production to the kops cluster
   • set AWS_VPC_K8S_CNI_EXTERNALSNAT=true in the AWS VPC CNI

   Action items

   • Monitor and alert on the AWS VPC CNI

   Lessons

   In a networking problem every component in the stack is a suspect; ruling out EKS early cost a lot of time. A DaemonSet that pinged every component from every other one exposed the anomaly that led to the fix. The team had only skimmed the AWS CNI documentation before the migration; knowing how the plugin works internally would have led to better judgements and hypotheses while debugging.

   View case
3. IL-0011 HAProxy ingress piled requests onto the same pods because a Go template visited the backend map in sorted pod IP order

   Skyscanner2019

   Symptoms

   On a Sunday, a team using one of Skyscanner's Kubernetes clusters manually paged the out-of-hours Kubernetes support because their service showed elevated latency, worst at the p90 and maximum levels.

   High latencyLoad imbalanceOOMKilledIntermittent connection failures

   Trigger

   Upgrading the HAProxy ingress controller to v0.6 and going back from Service virtual IPs to individual pod IPs as backends, on the understanding that the sort-backends flag introduced in v0.5, false by default, meant backends were randomly shuffled.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Ingress controllerHAProxyConfiguration templating

   Contributing factor

   Unrepresentative stagingUnverified assumptionIgnored early signal

   Detection

   A cluster user manually paged the out-of-hours Kubernetes support about elevated latency; Prometheus queries then showed the uneven request distribution across pods.

   Remediation

   • switched the affected service from pod IPs back to the Service virtual IP through a config change in the internal deployment tool Slingshot
   • patched the controller to keep each backend's servers in an insertion-ordered slice and changed the template to iterate over that slice
   • tested the patch in sandbox clusters and rolled it out to the production clusters

   Action items

   • Run the internal controller patch in production and return to pod IPs as the default backends
   • Raise the problem upstream with a GitHub issue and pull request
   • Test changes to cluster components against the specific behaviour and conditions that matter

   Lessons

   The team already knew that sorted backends cause hot-podding and still did not test the new flag well enough to see that it did not work; changes to cluster components need tests aimed at the exact behaviour that matters, under conditions like production. A keyword can behave differently in different parts of a language: range over a map is unordered in Go code but sorted in text/template. A small cluster component can do outsized harm to every user of the cluster and, in the end, to customers.

   View case
4. IL-0075 Kubernetes API servers pegged on CPU when the cluster grew to about 290 nodes, traced to Datadog agents polling the API

   Civis Analytics2019

   Symptoms

   After Civis released its new script infrastructure on Kubernetes internally in September 2018, developers reported that kubectl commands were slow, and users intermittently could not start notebooks and services.

   Control plane lagControl plane unresponsiveHigh latencyHigh error rateDNS resolution failures

   Trigger

   Migrating clients' Python, R and container scripts from the in-house Bocce system to Kubernetes (the project called Croquet) pushed the cluster to about 290 EC2 instances under a large script load.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Kubernetes API serverTelemetry agentetcd

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitUnverified assumptionMonitoring blind spotNo capacity planning

   Detection

   Developer reports of slow kubectl commands and user reports of notebooks and services failing to start, then high CPU on the master nodes.

   Remediation

   • moved internal users back to the old Bocce infrastructure
   • resized the three master nodes from m4.large to m4.4xlarge
   • changed the Datadog setup so per-node agents no longer polled the API server for service metadata
   • raised max-requests-inflight for non-mutating requests from 400 to 1200
   • grew the etcd EBS volumes from 20 to 100 GB (100 to 300 IOPS)
   • switched client scripts from the ClusterFirst DNS policy to Default

   Action items

   • Upgrade etcd from 2.2.1 to 3.x once Kops supports a safe migration
   • Solve the in-cluster DNS timeouts so client scripts can talk to other workloads in the cluster

   Lessons

   Kubernetes can reach thousands of nodes only after tuning, and third-party DaemonSets are a common cause of control plane load: an agent on every node that polls or watches the API server multiplies with the cluster size. Datadog, kube2iam and the fluentd metadata filter all showed this. A small configuration change often fixes it, but finding it took load testing and the API server access logs.

   View case

By root cause4