Cases12 cases

1 to 5 of 12

1. IL-0179 With DEBUG logging and synchronous log output, a high-traffic service filled the 64 KB stdout pipe, so request threads blocked in write() while holding database connections and HikariCP ran dry, failing requests in 30-second bursts

   MUSINSA2026

   Symptoms

   The on-call engineer for a high-traffic service was alerted that requests were failing in large batches every 30 seconds.

   High error rateIntermittent timeoutsConnection pool exhaustion

   Trigger

   DEBUG level logging was on in production when traffic surged, raising log volume to about 100 times normal while the service logged synchronously.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Application logging libraryContainer runtimeTelemetry agentApplication database

   Contributing factor

   Unverified assumptionExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   The on-call engineer was alerted that requests were failing in large batches every 30 seconds.

   Action items

   • Replace synchronous logging with TraceAwareAsyncAppender, which captures trace_id and span_id on the calling thread and drops logs instead of blocking when the queue is full (neverBlock=true)
   • Keep the amount of log output at a sustainable level, since an asynchronous queue still fills under sustained overload

   Lessons

   Removing AsyncAppender to keep trace IDs also removed the protection that kept request threads away from stdout back-pressure. A company-wide standard applies the same side effect to dozens of services, so check what a standard rests on and what working behaviour it takes away. ThreadLocal context does not cross into an asynchronous worker, but capturing it on the calling thread before handing the event off keeps both the IDs and the asynchronous output. Under extreme load, dropping log lines is preferable to stopping request handling.

   View case
2. IL-0136 A deployment that cleared an internal service's caches at peak traffic sent 20 times the normal load to the Azure OpenAI metadata backend in Sweden Central, and health checks that depended on its database restarted instances in a loop for almost six hours

   Microsoft Azure2026

   Symptoms

   From 10:03 UTC on 29 September 2026, requests to Azure OpenAI Service, Foundry Agent Service, Foundry Models and Azure AI services in Sweden Central failed intermittently, took longer, or returned HTTP 500 and 503 errors. At 10:17 UTC service monitoring raised an alert on elevated failure rates for Azure OpenAI Service requests in the region.

   High error rateHigh latencyIntermittent connection failuresIntermittent timeoutsProbe failuresOutbound connection exhaustion

   Trigger

   At about 09:38 UTC a planned deployment of an internal service in Sweden Central cleared that service's caches during the region's peak traffic hours.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   In-memory cacheApplication database

   Contributing factor

   Change during peak hoursRetry stormAutomation amplificationMonitoring blind spotNo runbookHealth check tied to a dependency

   Detection

   Service monitoring detected elevated failure rates for Azure OpenAI Service requests in the region at 10:17 UTC and alerted the engineering teams; engineers were engaged at 10:28 UTC.

   Remediation

   • reconfigured the backend service's automated health check so it no longer depended on remote connectivity, which stopped the restart loop

   Action items

   • Reconfigure the backend service's automated health check so it no longer depends on connectivity to its database layer
   • Add monitoring and alerting on the load and latency of the caching layer used by the backend service
   • Update troubleshooting and procedural guidance for connection exhaustion scenarios for on-call engineers
   • Add throttling and rate limiting to protect the backend service from sudden traffic increases (estimated October 2026)
   • Increase the resource capacity of the caching layer used by the backend service across regions (estimated October 2026)
   • Improve diagnostic metrics and automated detection to identify such issues more quickly (estimated October 2026)
   • Partition the caching layer used by the backend service to increase its throughput (estimated December 2026)

   Lessons

   A health check that depends on a remote dependency turns a dependency problem into a restart loop: instances that cannot reach the database are killed, the remaining ones take more load and retries, and adding instances or resources does not help until the check itself is changed. Clearing a cache during peak traffic can multiply load on the backend behind it, especially when cache-read defects let lookups bypass the cache. Connection exhaustion was hard to see because the existing network and diagnostic metrics did not show it.

   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 cacheApplication database

   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-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
5. IL-0119 ChatGPT web service pods crash-looped on failing health checks after a Cosmos DB failure, leaving too few healthy pods to serve the web layer

   OpenAI2025

   Symptoms

   From 3:30am to 7:08am PT, chatgpt.com and a small number of OpenAI APIs returned elevated error rates. The status page classed the incident as a full outage.

   High error rateContainer crash loopProbe failures

   Trigger

   A failure of Cosmos DB in ChatGPT, at OpenAI's service provider.

   Root cause

   Cloud provider outage

   Component

   Application database

   Contributing factor

   Health check tied to a dependency

   Remediation

   • the service provider recovered the affected Cosmos DB databases at 4:25am PT
   • fixed the web server's health checking logic, which ended the pod crash loop

   Action items

   • Change the web systems to degrade more gracefully when they fail, including concurrency control and better load shedding
   • Make the database layer more resilient to service provider outages (described as already underway)

   Lessons

   The database came back at 4:25am PT, yet users saw errors until 7:08am PT: the web tier's own health checks kept removing pods after the dependency had recovered. The planned changes target the web tier's behaviour under failure, with concurrency control and load shedding, rather than the database alone.

   View case

By root cause7