Cases11 cases

8 to 11 of 11

1. IL-0070 Critical pods on core nodes evicted when Prometheus began scraping about 200 nodes after a dask-gateway scale-up

   2i2c2023

   Symptoms

   The hub pod of the prod JupyterHub on the leap cluster (leap.2i2c.org) restarted unexpectedly during a large node scale-up, and a user opened a support ticket. The ingress-nginx and proxy pods kept running.

   Pod evictionPods Pending

   Trigger

   A user's dask-gateway workload added about 100 dask-worker nodes within a minute, and Prometheus started scraping the metrics exporters on about 200 nodes.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   PrometheusNode pool

   Contributing factor

   No headroomExcessive blast radiusMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A user support ticket (2i2c Freshdesk ticket 414) about the leap hub; the engineer then looked at Grafana and the cluster's nodes and events.

   Action items

   • Configure CPU and memory requests for the hub and proxy pods (#2127; at least 100m CPU was proposed)
   • Make the Grafana OOMKiller dashboard work (#2213)
   • Move LEAP cloud infrastructure to shared nodes (#2209)
   • Update resource requests and limits, mainly for ingress-nginx and Prometheus (#2324)
   • Decide whether Prometheus should scrape dask worker pods (#2366)

   Lessons

   Prometheus load grows with the number of nodes, so a burst of autoscaled nodes can push a nearly full core node over the edge and evict the pods that matter most. Core pods that request 10m of CPU get a tenth of the CPU share of busy neighbours that request 100m. Kubernetes events expire after an hour, so evidence of OOM kills needs a dashboard that keeps it.

   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-0013 The conntrack table filled up on downsized GKE nodes and a high-traffic aggregation proxy saw climbing connection resets

   loveholidays2020

   Symptoms

   Shortly after a round of changes, loveholidays saw connectivity problems and raised error rates on its aggregation service. The service is a proxy between two other services of more than 100 instances each, handles over 10,000 requests per second continuously and can spike to four times that.

   Connection resetsHigh error rateIntermittent connection failures

   Trigger

   Three changes together: a change in service architecture, halving the RAM of the nodes that run the aggregation service, and sharding a downstream service, which doubled the number of connections to track.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   conntrack tablekube-proxyNode poolHAProxy

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitNo capacity planningNo alert on limit

   Detection

   Rising error rates and climbing connection reset errors in HAProxy, then node_exporter conntrack metrics compared with their limit.

   Remediation

   • moved the aggregation service to nodes with more RAM
   • limited the number of aggregation service pods per node

   Action items

   • Alert when conntrack table use goes above 75%, with (node_nf_conntrack_entries / on (pod) node_nf_conntrack_entries_limit / on (pod) group_right kube_pod_info) > 0.75

   Lessons

   The conntrack limit is tied to node memory, so resizing a node pool silently resizes the connection table, and on GKE the ratio did not match the commonly cited formula. A high-traffic proxy on small nodes can exhaust it, and the symptoms are connection resets and timeouts, so conntrack use needs its own metric and alert.

   View case
4. IL-0015 A GKE cluster's /16 pod address range ran out at 256 nodes, leaving new pods Pending and node scale-ups failing

   loveholidays2020

   Symptoms

   A colleague wrote in Slack that his application was taking a long time to deploy. A deployment that normally finishes in minutes had been running for about an hour: about half of the new pods were running and serving traffic, and the other half were Pending.

   Pods PendingIP address exhaustionScale-up failure

   Trigger

   The cluster reaching 256 nodes, the most its /16 pod secondary range could hold at 256 addresses per node; every further node creation failed.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   VPC subnet or pod address rangeCluster autoscalerNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsUnknown limit

   Detection

   A colleague reported in Slack that a deployment was slow; the pending pods' events and the cluster autoscaler status ConfigMap showed the exhausted IP space.

   Remediation

   • lowered the maximum pods per node on selected node pools, cutting IP consumption by about 30%
   • moved some node pools to larger instance types

   Action items

   • Lower the maximum pods per node on node pools that do not run many pods
   • Use larger instance types in some node pools

   Lessons

   In a VPC-native GKE cluster the number of nodes, not the number of pods, uses up the pod range: by default each node reserves 256 addresses, so even a /16 is full at 256 nodes. Maximum pods per node and node size are the practical levers; larger nodes pack better but take more pods down when they fail.

   View case

By root cause1