Cases13 cases

6 to 10 of 13

1. IL-0027 All CoreDNS pods landed on one node, the node ran out of memory, and DNS for the whole service went down

   Backpackr2025

   Symptoms

   Services on the production Amazon EKS cluster behind the idus marketplace threw intermittent errors whose cause was hard to pin down. Calls to external services such as RDS and Redis failed now and then, and whenever DNS traffic spiked, domain lookups answered slowly or failed outright.

   DNS resolution failuresIntermittent connection failuresHigh latencyOOMKilledService outage

   Trigger

   All CoreDNS pods were scheduled onto the same node, and that node's memory usage spiked until it ran out of memory.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   CoreDNSClient-side DNS resolver and cachekubeletContainer memory limitNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsSingle point of failureNo caching

   Detection

   The write-up does not say how the full outage was noticed. The earlier DNS trouble showed up as intermittent service errors, and investigating failed calls to RDS and Redis led to DNS resolution failures.

   Remediation

   • deployed NodeLocal DNSCache as a DaemonSet in front of CoreDNS
   • added a PodDisruptionBudget (maxUnavailable 1) and topologySpreadConstraints across zones for CoreDNS
   • lowered ndots from 5 to 2 with dnsConfig in the Deployments

   Lessons

   The CoreDNS setup that EKS creates by default (two pods) can be enough for a small or development cluster but becomes a bottleneck in a large production cluster, and DNS is a single point of failure that needs high availability and room to scale. Tuning the CoreDNS cache and buffer size only relieved the symptoms; the real load came from the extra queries that ndots:5 generates for external names. A CoreDNS pod without a memory limit can share a node's fate with everything else on it.

   View case
2. IL-0085 A control plane node of Magic Pages' Kubernetes cluster on Hetzner Cloud ran out of memory, the cluster's own calls then used up the Hetzner API rate limit, and all customer websites were down for about 7.5 hours

   Magic Pages2025

   Symptoms

   At around 09:33 UTC one of the three control plane nodes of the Kubernetes cluster that hosts Magic Pages went offline. Looking at the node showed that it had run out of memory.

   Service outageNode NotReadyCloud API rate limit exhausted

   Trigger

   One of the three control plane nodes ran out of memory and went offline at about 09:33 UTC; the attempts to replace it with hetzner-k3s failed while the cluster's own components were exhausting the Hetzner API rate limit.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Cloud controller managerPersistent volumes and stateful sets

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitRetry stormMonitoring blind spotLimited debug accessSingle point of failureNo runbook

   Detection

   The founder found the control plane node offline at about 09:33 UTC. Monitoring alerts about unreachable customer websites started around the time the replacement attempts failed, and about half an hour of investigation identified the exhausted Hetzner API rate limit.

   Remediation

   • powered off all servers of the Kubernetes cluster to stop the API requests so the Hetzner rate limit could recover
   • waited until ratelimit-remaining had built up a buffer before starting recovery
   • restarted the control plane servers
   • started the essential Longhorn components by hand so Longhorn could heal and make storage volumes available
   • restarted the remaining websites by hand

   Action items

   • Monitor the Hetzner API call rate coming from the Kubernetes cluster nodes themselves to get early warning of high usage
   • Get a higher Hetzner API rate limit; Hetzner support was contacted
   • Investigate how to reduce the cluster's reliance on a single API, including alternatives to hetzner-k3s
   • Document and test a procedure for recovering Longhorn after a full cluster shutdown

   Lessons

   The running cluster, not only the deployment tooling, consumed the cloud provider's API quota, and in a failure it consumed it fast enough that the quota never recovered. The default limit of 3600 requests per hour was not enough for failure and recovery scenarios, and API usage from inside the cluster was not monitored. A tool that hides the provider's API errors slows diagnosis. After a full, non-graceful shutdown, Longhorn needed manual intervention to come back, which lengthened the outage.

   View case
3. 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
4. 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
5. IL-0037 Image registry rate-limited a whole region after a crash-looping DaemonSet with imagePullPolicy Always pulled through three NAT instances

   Datadog2019

   Symptoms

   Users reported that their jobs were not starting, with some sign that image pulls were involved. Many pods across the cluster were in error states related to image pulls, while applications that were already running were not affected.

   Image pull failuresService outage

   Trigger

   A change to the permissions on a storage bucket that one application needed to read. The application could no longer start, and its DaemonSet, running on roughly a thousand nodes of the cluster, went into a crash loop with imagePullPolicy: Always, so every restart pulled the image again although it was already on the node.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Container registry and its credentialsNAT gatewayApplication databaseAdmission webhook

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationSingle point of failureUnknown limitHarmful manual actionExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   Users reported that their jobs were not starting; monitoring had not caught it first.

   Remediation

   • replaced the affected NAT instances so registry traffic came from new source IPs
   • reconfigured the static IPs and firewall rules so applications could reach the Cloud SQL database again

   Action items

   • Add an admission webhook that rejects floating image tags, starting with latest
   • Apply the image tag webhook to workload objects only, not to pods, after it blocked pods created by in-cluster controllers

   Lessons

   The speakers' takeaway is to be very careful with DaemonSets in large clusters: they say they had broken everything DaemonSets depend on, including DNS, Vault and the image repository, and that it is very easy to break things when managing them by the thousand. imagePullPolicy: Always made every crash-loop restart pull the image again. Sending all registry traffic through three NAT instances put the whole region behind three source IPs, which the registry rate-limited, and changing those IPs cut the connections to a critical database reached over the internet through them. An admission webhook on pods rejects the pods that controllers in the cluster create, where no user sees the error.

   View case

By root cause1