Cases10 cases

1 to 5 of 10

1. IL-0435 Error rates rose as Aurora MySQL killed connections and declined queries to avoid OOM while load metrics stayed flat

   CyberAgent2026

   Symptoms

   An alert fired one day because an application's error rate had suddenly risen. The error log of the Aurora MySQL RDS instance for that time showed Aurora killing connections and declining queries to avoid running out of memory. The killed queries also made application latency worse.

   High error rateMemory pressure

   Trigger

   An application release added a batch job run every minute by a Kubernetes CronJob. Each run's short-lived pod connected to the database from a new pod IP.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   DatabaseJobs and CronJobs

   Contributing factor

   Unreviewed defaultsChange with a delayed effect

   Detection

   An alert fired on the application's error rate.

   Remediation

   • Set performance_schema to manual management and capped two related Performance Schema parameters, unlimited by default, at 100 in the parameter group, then restarted the RDS instance

   Lessons

   When system alerts fire but the database's load metrics look calm, Performance Schema growth is worth suspecting. The two parameters that were capped are unlimited by default, so connections from ever-changing source addresses keep adding to the records. Capping them has a cost: once the cap is exceeded, per-host figures in Performance Insights are missing. Putting RDS Proxy between the application and Aurora MySQL to keep source hosts stable is another possible measure.

   View case
2. IL-0350 Hosts in an IONOS TXL cluster lost connectivity when an InfiniBand fabric resweep failed on a full multicast table

   IONOS Cloud2026

   Symptoms

   On 3 March 2026, during a scheduled maintenance to replace a faulty switch in a cluster in IONOS Cloud's TXL data center, monitoring alerts fired and the hosts in that cluster lost network connectivity. Customers saw intermittent network degradation or outages, and the Data Center Designer (DCD) web frontend and the AI Model Hub became unreachable.

   Network unreachableLink flappingService outage

   Trigger

   During a scheduled maintenance to replace a faulty switch, Topology 2 of 2 in the affected cluster was disabled as planned, and a link flap on a switch in Topology 1 then flooded the InfiniBand control plane with alerts and started a fabric resweep.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   InfiniBand fabricNetwork control plane (SDN)BGP routingNIC, cable and switch port linkModel hubDatabase

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   IONOS began investigating monitoring alerts in TXL; the first status update was posted at 11:36 UTC.

   Remediation

   • Switched from the affected control plane to its standby
   • Rebooted the locked-up gateways
   • Recovered Topology 1 from the scheduled maintenance
   • Paused provisioning in the cluster that had a backlog of queued jobs
   • Re-enabled provisioning once network connectivity improved and watched job execution
   • Re-established connectivity for the systems that support the DCD

   Action items

   • Adjusted the control-plane configuration to use less aggressive failover timers and reduced heavy sweep activity, lowering the load on the forwarding table
   • Reduced the number of multicast group memberships to relieve the forwarding table
   • Set up continuous monitoring of forwarding table use and control-plane memory with alerts before capacity limits are reached
   • Move the control plane to dedicated high-performance servers, separate from data-plane traffic
   • Audit IPv6 configurations and IPoIB driver settings
   • Modernise the interconnect fabric, including switches, gateways and drivers
   • Hardened IAM maintenance protocols so that critical identity services keep working when the primary Cloud APIs are temporarily unavailable
   • Move IAM to a dedicated platform without a dependency on the standard managed Kubernetes clusters
   • Introduce a dedicated provisioning provider for DBaaS and Managed Kubernetes
   • Add automated circuit breakers to the provisioning engine against overload and queue buildup from self-healing services
   • Improve visibility and control over job execution and prioritisation in the provisioning queue
   • Change the provisioning queue architecture to decouple services and reduce spillover

   Lessons

   IONOS identified the linking of services through the shared provisioning queue as a key reason the degradation lasted as long as it did. Alongside making each service more robust, it is decoupling the provisioning queue and addressing dependencies between services to reduce the blast radius of future incidents.

   View case
3. IL-0100 PostHog's feature flags pods were packed onto Kubernetes nodes that were too small for their CPU requests, and CPU saturation above 90% caused three outages in ten days through Redis overload, connection pool exhaustion and slow queries

   PostHog2025

   Symptoms

   On 21 October 2025 at 21:45 UTC a change to timeout handling was deployed to the feature flags service, and two minutes later automated monitoring reported higher error rates. The change was rolled back by 21:49, but error rates stayed high: about 38% of flag evaluation requests in the US datacenter returned errors. At 22:30 Redis metrics showed memory exhaustion on ElastiCache, at 22:35 Postgres connections spiked, and at 22:45 the team found a massive data transfer from Postgres into Redis. The main PostHog application was affected as well, because it shares the Redis instance with the flags service.

   Sustained high node CPUHigh error rateHigh latencyContainer crash loopDatabase overload

   Trigger

   On 21 October a deployment meant to reduce timeout errors (PR #39821); on 24 October the deployment of IP-based rate limiting (PR #40074) that saw all traffic as coming from the load balancer's IP; on 28 October an unrelated routine deployment that rolled the feature flag pods in the US region.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Node poolPod scheduling and placementIn-memory cacheDatabase

   Contributing factor

   No alert on limitRetry stormIneffective rollbackSingle point of failureNo staged rolloutUnrepresentative staging

   Detection

   On 21 October automated monitoring detected higher error rates two minutes after the deploy. On 24 October no alert existed for 429 errors, and the team learned of the incident from customer reports that began at 18:10 UTC, a 62-minute detection delay. On 28 October on-call received a high error count alert. On 29 October the incident was reported with higher error rates and latency. No alert existed for CPU pressure, so the CPU saturation behind all three incidents was not seen directly.

   Remediation

   • rolled back the timeout handling change within 2 minutes on 21 October, which did not stop the errors
   • throttled connections and Redis writes on 21 October
   • halted the rollout on 28 October, scaled the US flags pods to zero until Redis recovered, then scaled them back gradually
   • rolled back hardware changes on 30 October at 00:03 UTC, which removed most errors but not the latency
   • increased the pod resource requests and adjusted the Kubernetes fleet size so fewer pods ran on each node
   • added retry limits to Envoy between the load balancer and the service
   • moved database connection timeouts and other critical settings to runtime configuration and raised the timeout values
   • added per-node and per-pod CPU alerts at 80% sustained for 5 minutes that page on-call

   Action items

   • Form a strike team from the flags, ingestion and infrastructure teams to review the application and infrastructure for remaining bottlenecks
   • Investigate separating the flags Redis instance from the application Redis instance
   • Before re-enabling ArgoCD sync, align the flags service chart configuration with the values in ArgoCD and define the deployment and Redis strategy
   • Make the feature flags team hard code-owners for flags-related code
   • Build a dashboard of key flag metrics with runbook links and update the feature flag runbooks
   • Add missing alerts on existing service and infrastructure metrics
   • Make readiness checks validate dependencies that degrade under load, for example by pinging the database
   • Rate-limit cache population so it cannot overwhelm Redis
   • Monitor connection pools with automatic throttling near exhaustion and limit concurrent connections
   • Build a production-scale load testing framework
   • Build progressive rollout infrastructure to limit blast radius
   • Document Postgres-to-Redis data flows and write runbooks for data transfer storms

   Lessons

   Nodes that are small relative to pod requests let the scheduler pack many pods on each node, and the resulting CPU saturation showed up three different ways: excessive parallelism, connection pool exhaustion and slow queries. Treating each symptom separately let the problem return; right-sizing the pods and nodes fixed all three. CPU must be alerted on from the start. Unbounded Envoy retries and unbounded cache population amplified the overload, and a Redis instance shared with the main application spread a flags problem to the main application. A rollback did not end the incident, because the data transfer and resource exhaustion it had started kept running.

   View case
4. IL-0110 A Grafana Agent pod's high memory use and crash-looping Hangfire pods drove a Kubernetes node into system OOM and NotReady, twice in one day

   DFDS2024

   Symptoms

   At 10:01 UTC on 2024-03-13 a Kubernetes node entered NotReady state, with CPU requests at 78% and memory requests at 82%. An alert fired in Slack at 10:03 and was picked up at 10:05. An attempt to SSH into the node at 10:13 failed because it was unresponsive; it started responding again at 10:19.

   Node NotReadyContainer crash loopOOMKilledMonitoring outage

   Trigger

   Pods of a dev container that used Hangfire to trigger jobs failed with OOM and crash-looped on a node where a Grafana Agent pod was already using a lot of memory.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Telemetry agentContainer memory limitDatabase

   Contributing factor

   Excessive blast radiusNo resource requests or limitsHarmful manual actionMonitoring blind spot

   Detection

   A Slack alert fired two minutes after the node went NotReady and was picked up two minutes later; the second node's NotReady at 15:03 also raised a Slack alert.

   Remediation

   • marked the EC2 instance unhealthy so a new node started
   • cordoned and force-drained the NotReady node and terminated its EC2 instance
   • removed the new LimitRange from the Grafana Agent namespace and restarted the Grafana Agent pod
   • scaled the dev container to 0 replicas, after which EC2 network traffic returned to normal
   • after the second NotReady, scaled the dev container to 0 replicas again and added a new node
   • emailed the team that owns the dev container, which confirmed it was working on a fix

   Action items

   • Move grafana-agent to the monitoring node group
   • Add alerts for when bandwidth across the cluster reaches a certain threshold
   • Investigate whether memory limits can be set on the grafana-agent Helm chart
   • Investigate grafana-agent memory usage
   • Ask Grafana support whether grafana-agent should use a PVC
   • Consider pushing node logs to Loki with limited retention
   • Create a wiki page with common metrics and log queries to check when investigating issues with Kubernetes nodes

   Lessons

   Dev workloads mixed with production let one crash-looping dev container take down nodes that production also used, and a monitoring agent outside its dedicated node group added to the memory pressure. Scaling the suspect container back up before its owners had fixed it brought the failure back on the replacement node. The team also noted that action items from earlier post-mortems need follow-up, and that knowledge of useful CloudWatch metrics had not been shared, which made the diagnosis harder.

   View case
5. 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

   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

By root cause1