Incident Library
Applied filters Root causeCapacity exhaustionComponentNode poolOrganisationloveholidaysClear 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

    Shortly after a round of changes, loveholidays saw connectivity problems and raised error rates on its aggregation service. The service is a proxy between two other services of more than 100 instances each, handles over 10,000 requests per second continuously and can spike to four times that.

    Trigger

    Three changes together: a change in service architecture, halving the RAM of the nodes that run the aggregation service, and sharding a downstream service, which doubled the number of connections to track.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    Rising error rates and climbing connection reset errors in HAProxy, then node_exporter conntrack metrics compared with their limit.

    Remediation
    • moved the aggregation service to nodes with more RAM
    • limited the number of aggregation service pods per node
    Action items
    • Alert when conntrack table use goes above 75%, with (node_nf_conntrack_entries / on (pod) node_nf_conntrack_entries_limit / on (pod) group_right kube_pod_info) > 0.75
    Lessons

    The conntrack limit is tied to node memory, so resizing a node pool silently resizes the connection table, and on GKE the ratio did not match the commonly cited formula. A high-traffic proxy on small nodes can exhaust it, and the symptoms are connection resets and timeouts, so conntrack use needs its own metric and alert.

  2. Symptoms

    A colleague wrote in Slack that his application was taking a long time to deploy. A deployment that normally finishes in minutes had been running for about an hour: about half of the new pods were running and serving traffic, and the other half were Pending.

    Trigger

    The cluster reaching 256 nodes, the most its /16 pod secondary range could hold at 256 addresses per node; every further node creation failed.

    Root cause
    Component
    Contributing factor
    Detection

    A colleague reported in Slack that a deployment was slow; the pending pods' events and the cluster autoscaler status ConfigMap showed the exhausted IP space.

    Remediation
    • lowered the maximum pods per node on selected node pools, cutting IP consumption by about 30%
    • moved some node pools to larger instance types
    Action items
    • Lower the maximum pods per node on node pools that do not run many pods
    • Use larger instance types in some node pools
    Lessons

    In a VPC-native GKE cluster the number of nodes, not the number of pods, uses up the pod range: by default each node reserves 256 addresses, so even a /16 is full at 256 nodes. Maximum pods per node and node size are the practical levers; larger nodes pack better but take more pods down when they fail.

Check your cluster for this

These 2 cases involve Node pool and Cluster autoscaler. 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 cause1