Cases7 cases

4 to 7 of 7

1. IL-0175 Lowering a JVM pod's CPU request from 2 to 1 pushed memory past the 90% alert because the JVM treats a cgroup v1 cpu.shares value of exactly 1024 as unset and sized Reactor Netty threads from the node's 36 CPUs

   Hyperconnect2022

   Symptoms

   During a DevOps review of resource usage across microservices, the team lowered resources.requests.cpu from 2 to 1 for notification-preferences, a Spring WebFlux service not yet used in production. A few minutes later an alarm fired because memory usage was above 90%. Neither the memory allocation nor the JVM's GC arguments had been changed.

   Memory pressure

   Trigger

   The team lowered resources.requests.cpu for the notification-preferences deployment from 2 to 1 as part of resource optimisation, with no CPU limit set.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Language runtime settingsContainer CPU limit

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limits

   Detection

   A memory usage alarm above 90% fired a few minutes after the CPU request was lowered.

   Remediation

   • set -XX:ActiveProcessorCount=1 in JAVA_OPTIONS so the JVM uses one processor regardless of the cgroup values

   Action items

   • Write an internal notice about the issue

   Lessons

   On cgroup v1, a JVM in a pod with a CPU request of exactly one core and no CPU limit sees every CPU of the node, because cpu.shares 1024 is read as unset. Thread pools sized from availableProcessors(), such as Reactor Netty's I/O workers, grow accordingly and use more memory. When lowering requests for JVM services without a CPU limit, set -XX:ActiveProcessorCount or a CPU limit explicitly. Later JDKs ignore CPU requests for this calculation altogether.

   View case
2. IL-0591 Gitpod workspaces in all regions became IO bound and unresponsive for days after the ws39 workspace cluster release

   Gitpod2022

   Symptoms

   From April 11, 2022 at 13:17 UTC customers and Gitpod staff reported that Gitpod workspaces were intermittently becoming unresponsive. CPU usage of nodes and pods looked normal, with nothing maxed out, and at 13:58 UTC the team found that the workspaces were IO bound rather than CPU bound.

   Throughput degradationSustained high node CPUNode NotReadyData loss

   Trigger

   The ws39 generation of workspace clusters, released to all regional clusters on April 8th at 20:08 UTC and to the XL clusters on April 9th at 17:45 UTC, split the 1TB disk into smaller RAID0 disks, changed CPU limiting and workspace networking, and moved to faster machine types.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   Node root diskContainer CPU limit

   Contributing factor

   No staged rolloutGap in automated testsUnrepresentative stagingUnknown limitOverlapping failuresIneffective rollbackHarmful manual actionLimited debug access

   Detection

   Customers and Gitpod staff reported on April 11th at 13:17 UTC that workspaces were intermittently unresponsive, and the team opened an incident in Slack through its incident.io integration. On April 17th the team noticed increased CPU load on the workspace nodes and opened an internal incident.

   Remediation

   • Shifted workspace starts back to the ws38 clusters on April 11th
   • Built ws39a clusters with c2d machines and local SSDs and moved traffic to them
   • Requested a limit increase from Let's Encrypt
   • Routed EU XL traffic to the regional EU cluster and built ws-eu39bxl to replace the crashed ws-eu39xl
   • Cleaned up workspaces stuck in a stopping state so users could start them again
   • Released ws40 with 1TB boot disks to get more IO bandwidth
   • Removed the workspaces that consumed excessive CPU time for crypto-mining
   • Blocked the fraudulent users behind the crypto-mining from using Gitpod
   • Rolled back the ws-daemon change that broke CPU limiting and shipped the fix in the ws34 clusters
   • Blocked ACME HTTP requests to workspace ports so Let's Encrypt rate limits would not be hit again
   • Rolled out IO limiting with the ws41xl and ws41 clusters and moved traffic to them step by step

   Action items

   • Invest in test automation so that test results stop releases like this one
   • Vary the interval between traffic shifts to new clusters, with more time for larger releases
   • Add a risk assessment stage, to be automated, that governs changeset size and rollout speed of workspace cluster rollouts
   • Reduce the impact teams have on each other
   • Add review criteria that find backwards incompatible changes before pull requests are merged, and split such pull requests
   • Recommend rollback as the primary means of mitigation in the incident procedures, and look at automating it
   • Make the status page show the workspace service as down when it is, and update the playbooks
   • Keep incident communication in a single Slack channel and Google Meet
   • Put 10% of the engineering staff on the on-call rotation from May 9th and use that time on observability, alerting and stability

   Lessons

   Gitpod concluded that it should have committed to rolling back on April 11th instead of building and shipping fixes, which kept customers on degraded workspaces longer than necessary. A large release so soon after the previous one needed a risk assessment and slower traffic shifts, and backwards incompatible changes that block a rollback need to be found before pull requests are merged. Failure-free operations require experience with failure.

   View case
3. 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
4. IL-0012 CPU limits and an unpatched kernel CFS quota bug throttled multi-threaded services into stalls, failed health checks and timeouts

   Omio2020

   Symptoms

   For about six months, applications on Omio's Google Kubernetes Engine clusters stalled at random: they got stuck, stopped answering health check requests or lost network connections, and nothing the team looked at explained why.

   CPU throttlingProbe failuresHigh error rateHigh latencyIntermittent timeoutsIntermittent connection failures

   Trigger

   Multi-threaded workloads running with CPU limits on nodes whose kernel did not yet have the fix for a known CFS quota bug that causes unnecessary throttling.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Container CPU limitLinux kernelkubelet

   Contributing factor

   Unknown limitMonitoring blind spotUnpatched known bug

   Detection

   Months of random stalls and failed health checks led the team to read the cgroup cpu.stat throttling counters inside the pods, which showed far more throttling than the limits should allow.

   Remediation

   • removed CPU limits until the kernel with the CFS bug fix was deployed across all clusters

   Action items

   • Deploy the kernel with the CFS quota bug fix across all clusters
   • Monitor utilisation, saturation and error metrics, API latency and error rates to confirm the change behaves as expected

   Lessons

   A CPU limit is a time quota per 100 ms period, not a share of cores, so a multi-threaded container can be stopped for most of each period long before it uses the cores it was given, and a kernel bug can make that worse. Throttling is invisible in standard Kubernetes metrics and has to be read from the cgroup counters. Removing limits trades away protection against a container that takes a whole node, which is only acceptable when runtimes are tuned.

   View case

By root cause3