Cases11 cases

6 to 10 of 11

1. IL-0202 A burst of queries and database writes exhausted connection pools and memory on Honeycomb's ingest hosts, and Kubernetes crash-loop back-off kept failed hosts offline so ingest capacity stayed too low to recover

   Honeycomb2023sev1

   Symptoms

   Standard alerting paged Honeycomb's on-call engineers about the performance and stability of event ingestion, and the automated load-shedding mechanisms tripped and sent further notifications. The status page described a higher than normal error rate and response time on the ingestion service.

   High error rateHigh latencyContainer crash loopService outageDatabase overload

   Trigger

   An abnormally large number of queries arrived from many separate connections within a few minutes.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Application databaseIn-memory cache

   Contributing factor

   Retry stormAutomation amplification

   Detection

   Standard alerting notified the on-call engineers about ingestion performance and stability, and the automated load-shedding mechanisms added notifications when they tripped. The first status post, about alerts on a higher than normal error rate and response time, went up at 18:28 PST (02:28 UTC), 13 minutes after the 02:15 UTC start.

   Remediation

   • Scaled the ingest fleet up manually and aggressively
   • Cut off most ingest for a few minutes so the ingest hosts could come back with enough capacity
   • Temporarily lowered the rate limits for the most aggressive traffic sources until their traffic subsided

   Action items

   • Keep the ingest fleet scaled up to prevent a repeat while longer-term fixes are worked on
   • Decide on the projects that will address these failure paths

   Lessons

   Load shedding and auto-scaling were in place, yet a burst that arrived faster than the cache could spread its writes still took the ingest hosts down. During recovery, Kubernetes' crash loop back-off worked against the operators: the hosts that had failed stayed offline while the fleet needed every host. Clients that retry whole OTel batches after a partial drop can multiply traffic many times over, so per-source rate limits were what finally stabilised ingest.

   View case
2. IL-0028 Temporal History service latency rose because its pods were CPU-throttled while CPU usage read below 60 percent

   Temporal2023

   Symptoms

   Request latency from the Temporal Server History service, the service that starts workflow executions and records their progress, was higher and less steady than it should be on a self-hosted Kubernetes deployment. The CPU dashboard showed the history pods using less than 60 percent of their CPU, yet the same pods were being throttled.

   CPU throttlingHigh latency

   Trigger

   Normal load on History pods that had a CPU limit of 2 cores on 8-core nodes, with the Go runtime's GOMAXPROCS left at its default of one per node core.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container CPU limitLanguage runtime settingsPrometheus

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A Prometheus query for CPU throttling showed the history pods throttled although their CPU usage read under 60 percent.

   Remediation

   • set the GOMAXPROCS environment variable to 2 to match the 2-core CPU limit

   Action items

   • Set GOMAXPROCS automatically from the Kubernetes CPU limit, from Temporal release 1.21.0

   Lessons

   A CPU usage graph averaged over 15 seconds or more can sit far below 100 percent while a container is being throttled, so throttling needs its own metric. A Go program in a container should have GOMAXPROCS matched to its CPU limit, or to its CPU request when it has no limit. The author recommends not using CPU limits at all.

   View case
3. IL-0140 The GKE API in us-central1 returned errors and high latency for 3 hours 19 minutes after an unexpected rise in backend traffic that client retries made worse

   Google Cloud2022

   Symptoms

   From 03:03 US/Pacific on 14 June 2022, calls to the GKE API in us-central1 through gcloud and the Google Cloud Console were slow and returned errors. Retrying sometimes succeeded.

   High error rateHigh latencyControl plane lag

   Trigger

   An unexpected increase in backend traffic to the GKE API in us-central1.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   GKE control plane

   Contributing factor

   Retry storm

   Remediation

   • scaled up the GKE control plane to handle the increased traffic

   Lessons

   Client retries against an overloaded management API add to the overload. When the cloud provider's control plane is degraded, running workloads may be fine while cluster operations fail, and the status page offered no workaround beyond advising customers to use another region if they could.

   View case
4. IL-0206 Consul agents in GitLab.com's GKE pods were repeatedly OOM-killed, so the Rails pods lost database replica discovery and sent every query to the primary

   GitLab2022

   Symptoms

   On 2022-04-25 the Sidekiq Apdex (the share of background jobs that finish within a target time) dropped, and an engineer declared an incident in Slack at 15:13 UTC. Users saw intermittent slowness across GitLab.com, and asynchronous work such as pipeline creation and import and export took unusually long.

   High latencyDatabase overloadOOMKilledHigh error rate

   Trigger

   The Consul agent in GitLab.com's GKE pods had memory demand spikes that did not fit in the pods' 500MB memory limit, and the agent was killed again and again.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container memory limitService discoveryApplication database

   Contributing factor

   –

   Detection

   An engineer declared the incident in Slack at 15:13 UTC after the Sidekiq Apdex dropped; the second event was found when monitoring detected an elevated error rate at 01:21 UTC on 2022-04-26.

   Remediation

   • planned at 16:13 to raise the per-user connection limit for the gitlab database user and the pgbouncer backend pools for the main database; changes were applied at 17:26 and confirmed at 17:47
   • raised the pod memory limits from 500MB to 1GB so the Consul agents survive memory spikes

   Action items

   • Monitor the Consul agents on GKE pods to see whether the 1GB memory limit keeps them healthy
   • Investigate the Consul memory demand spikes and what can be done beyond raising the hard memory limit

   Lessons

   When the local Consul agent that Rails uses for database service discovery keeps dying, Rails does not fail; it sends every query to the last known primary. What engineers saw was database saturation and slow background jobs, which pointed the investigation first at a recent pgbouncer pool change. The memory limit of the Consul agent in every pod therefore decided the load on the primary database.

   View case
5. IL-0033 Uneven load across kube-dns pods and a DNS packets-per-second limit pushed service latency to 20 seconds

   Airbnb2019

   Symptoms

   On May 10 the latency graphs of several services showed a few spikes of up to about one second, then latency climbed to five seconds and then to 20 seconds, and it stayed there for a long time. The same pattern appeared on many services, not just one.

   High latencyIntermittent timeoutsLoad imbalanceDNS resolution failures

   Trigger

   Several services sent a high volume of external DNS queries, all of which went through kube-dns.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   kube-dnskube-proxyClient-side DNS resolver and cache

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaults

   Detection

   Latency graphs of several services showed the rise; engineers then looked at load per kube-dns pod.

   Lessons

   By default a pod discovers DNS through the kube-dns cluster IP and uses the ClusterFirst policy, so even external lookups go through kube-dns. If a pod does not need cluster DNS, set its dnsPolicy to Default or None. Check the DNS policy early and often. iptables picks backends at random and is not a load balancer, so pods behind a cluster IP, kube-dns included, can carry very different loads.

   View case

By root cause1