Incident Library
Applied filters ComponentConfiguration templatingFactorIgnored early signalClear allEvery case under the filters, with no sentence; newest first.
Suggested filters Search, and the values found in your words appear here.

Graph

  • Root cause
  • Component
  • Symptom
  • Contributing factor
  • Case

Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

  1. Symptoms

    During a rollout of the Grafana Loki distributor Deployment in one Grafana Cloud Logs environment, the write path went down for about 25 minutes. The newly started distributor pods were OOM-killed over and over, never passed their health and readiness checks, and the rollout stopped making progress.

    Trigger

    Step 1 of moving the Loki ring off a separately deployed key-value store onto embedded memberlist added a new label, gossip_ring_member: 'true', to the distributor pods and Service, together with a small config change, and the change required a rollout of the distributors.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    The first clue was kubectl get pods and the kube_deployment_status_replicas_updated metric showing that only 16 of 140 distributor pods had been updated.

    Remediation
    • scaled the distributor Deployment out horizontally so the load spread over more pods with the new label and the rollout could continue
    • reverted the migration step to end the outage
    • set service_ignored_labels:: [$._config.gossip_member_label] and passed it to k.util.serviceFor so the label is no longer copied into the Service selector
    Action items
    • Update the function that generates a Service from a Deployment or StatefulSet to handle edge cases, including this one
    Lessons

    A Service whose selector is built by copying every label of a workload changes which pods it matches as soon as a new label is added. During a rollout it then matches only the new pods, which receive all the traffic before there are enough of them. A few errors during a rollout in other environments hid the problem, because those environments gave distributors more memory and could absorb the shift. Manifest diffs kept for every pull request made it possible to see that the Service selector had changed.

  2. Symptoms

    On a Sunday, a team using one of Skyscanner's Kubernetes clusters manually paged the out-of-hours Kubernetes support because their service showed elevated latency, worst at the p90 and maximum levels.

    Trigger

    Upgrading the HAProxy ingress controller to v0.6 and going back from Service virtual IPs to individual pod IPs as backends, on the understanding that the sort-backends flag introduced in v0.5, false by default, meant backends were randomly shuffled.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    A cluster user manually paged the out-of-hours Kubernetes support about elevated latency; Prometheus queries then showed the uneven request distribution across pods.

    Remediation
    • switched the affected service from pod IPs back to the Service virtual IP through a config change in the internal deployment tool Slingshot
    • patched the controller to keep each backend's servers in an insertion-ordered slice and changed the template to iterate over that slice
    • tested the patch in sandbox clusters and rolled it out to the production clusters
    Action items
    • Run the internal controller patch in production and return to pod IPs as the default backends
    • Raise the problem upstream with a GitHub issue and pull request
    • Test changes to cluster components against the specific behaviour and conditions that matter
    Lessons

    The team already knew that sorted backends cause hot-podding and still did not test the new flag well enough to see that it did not work; changes to cluster components need tests aimed at the exact behaviour that matters, under conditions like production. A keyword can behave differently in different parts of a language: range over a map is unordered in Go code but sorted in text/template. A small cluster component can do outsized harm to every user of the cluster and, in the end, to customers.

Check your cluster for this

These 2 cases involve Configuration templating and HAProxy. kubegap audits a Kubernetes cluster for gaps like these, read-only, from Claude Code or Codex; its checks cite public reports like the ones in this library.

By root cause2