Cases6 cases

3 to 6 of 6

1. IL-0150 A latent race condition in DynamoDB's DNS automation left an empty DNS record for dynamodb.us-east-1.amazonaws.com, and the DynamoDB and EC2 launch failures that followed caused EKS, ECS and Fargate container launch failures and cluster scaling delays in us-east-1

   Amazon Web Services2025

   Symptoms

   At 11:48 PM PDT on 19 October 2025, every system that reached DynamoDB in us-east-1 through the public regional endpoint started getting DNS failures and could not connect. This included customer traffic and internal AWS services that depend on DynamoDB. DynamoDB global table replicas in other regions still answered but fell behind in replication to and from us-east-1.

   DNS resolution failuresHigh error rateScale-up failureIntermittent connection failuresHigh latency

   Trigger

   One DNS Enactor, slowed by unusually high retry delays, applied a much older DNS plan to the regional DynamoDB endpoint just as another Enactor that had applied the newest plan ran its clean-up, which deleted that older plan and with it every IP address of the endpoint.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Authoritative DNS servers and recordsApplication databaseCloud load balancer

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationRetry stormNo runbook

   Detection

   DNS failures to DynamoDB began immediately at 11:48 PM PDT and the engineering teams of affected AWS services were engaged at once; by 12:38 AM they had identified DynamoDB's DNS state as the source. The later NLB health check problem was detected by monitoring at 6:52 AM.

   Remediation

   • applied temporary mitigations by 1:15 AM that let some internal services reach DynamoDB and repaired key internal tooling
   • restored all DynamoDB DNS information by 2:25 AM through manual operator intervention
   • throttled incoming work and selectively restarted DWFM hosts from 4:14 AM so droplet leases could be re-established
   • reduced the load on Network Manager to bring network configuration propagation times back to normal by 10:36 AM
   • disabled automatic health check failover for NLB at 9:36 AM, and re-enabled it at 2:09 PM after EC2 recovered
   • relaxed the EC2 request throttles from 11:23 AM until all EC2 APIs and launches were normal at 1:50 PM

   Action items

   • Disable the DynamoDB DNS Planner and DNS Enactor automation worldwide
   • Fix the race condition and add protections against applying incorrect DNS plans before re-enabling the DNS automation
   • Add a velocity control to NLB that limits how much capacity a single load balancer can remove when health check failures cause availability zone failover
   • Build an additional EC2 test suite that exercises the DWFM recovery workflow at scale
   • Improve throttling in EC2 data propagation systems so incoming work is rate limited by the size of the waiting queue

   Lessons

   A single DNS record that automation can empty is enough to take a widely used regional endpoint off the network, and every service built on it fails in turn. A check made once at the start of a long operation can be stale by the time the operation writes its result. Recovery of the dependency is not recovery of the dependents: systems that lost state during the outage, such as EC2's droplet leases and network propagation backlog, can collapse under their own catch-up work, and container services that rely on new instance launches keep failing to launch and scale until that work is done.

   View case
2. IL-0024 Expensive cache-backed API calls and uncancelled database requests overloaded MongoDB and took the Hugging Face Hub down three times

   Hugging Face2024

   Symptoms

   At 08:45 CET on 22 April 2024 the Hugging Face Hub became unstable, and by 09:30 it was unresponsive. For most users the website was slow or could not be reached at all.

   Service outageHigh latencyDatabase overload

   Trigger

   Bursts of requests to revision endpoints that read heavily from the *_info_cache collections: a call to https://huggingface.co/api/datasets/lighteval/mmlu/revision/main rose sharply right before the first crash, and a call to https://huggingface.co/api/models/sentence-transformers/all-mpnet-base-v2/revision/main, a model with 300+ associated spaces, lined up with the crash at 21:30 on 23 April.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Application databaseModel hubCluster autoscaler

   Contributing factor

   No headroomRetry stormOverlapping failures

   Detection

   Instability started at 08:45 on 22 April and the Hub was unresponsive by 09:30; the team followed MongoDB Atlas metrics and a MongoDB support case. The root cause was found days later from a new graph of requests per URL.

   Remediation

   • Added a firewall rule blocking all requests with a Java/* user agent
   • Disabled the quicksearch feature on the Hub
   • Scaled the MongoDB Atlas cluster by hand from tier 2 to tier 3
   • Switched the Hub to maintenance mode with a 503 page through AWS WAF and blocked incoming traffic
   • Scaled all Hub pods down to 0 and brought them back
   • Set an aggressive rate limit
   • Added timeouts to requests and reworked database queries that were slow or returned large bodies

   Action items

   • Add timeouts to requests based on their usual completion time
   • Optimise requests that took too long or returned a large body, and rework poorly designed database queries
   • Remove old unused indexes from the database
   • Build new dashboards and monitoring metrics
   • Move the *_info_cache collections to Redis
   • Make it possible to abort any database request when the client aborts theirs

   Lessons

   Finding the root cause took two to three days: the existing charts did not show it, and a per-URL request breakdown did. Not cancelling database work when a client goes away turns a strained database into a thundering herd. A close inspection of the database exposed architectural flaws and bottlenecks, such as a collection with large unused indexes, and taught the team which metrics need closer watching to anticipate crashes. Unrelated failures happening at the same time added to the stress and made restoring service harder.

   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-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

By root cause3