Cases3 cases

1 to 3 of 3

1. 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
2. IL-0467 Boskos crash-looped after a node drain started it from a buggy StatefulSet image, failing Kubernetes PR jobs for 9 hours

   Kubernetes project2019

   Symptoms

   Overnight into 26 March 2019 (PDT), every Prow test job that needed a GCP project from Boskos, the Kubernetes test-infra service that hands out GCP projects to test jobs, failed. The required job pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce failed on every run, so no pull request could be merged in kubernetes/kubernetes for just over nine hours, and other projects saw similar failures.

   Container crash loopService outage

   Trigger

   At 23:04 PDT the node running the only Boskos pod was drained to be replaced with a 1.13 node during the upgrade of the Prow clusters from Kubernetes 1.11 to 1.13. The replacement pod started from the StatefulSet's current spec, which named a newer Boskos image containing the bug.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   CI systemNode pool

   Contributing factor

   Change with a delayed effectUnverified assumptionSingle point of failureNo alert on limitChange started before off-hours

   Detection

   Users reported the failure on GitHub at 02:50 and on Slack at 05:16 and 06:27, and an engineer saw the Slack reports on waking at 07:16. The Boskos monitoring dashboard showed the failure, but no alert caught it.

   Remediation

   • Built and deployed a new Boskos image with the bug fixed
   • Cleaned up the GCP projects that had been left open

   Action items

   • Change the Boskos configuration so that deployments actually take effect (#11956)
   • Automate Boskos deploys (#11957)
   • Improve alerting on Boskos status (#11953)

   Lessons

   The write-up lists what went poorly: a ten-hour upgrade was started shortly after 17:00 when on-call coverage ended at 18:00; deployments were not checked to confirm that something had actually rolled out; the Boskos StatefulSet was not set up to perform updates, so changing its spec left the old pod running; the December change appears never to have been tested; and Boskos was deployed by hand, unlike most of Prow, which left more room for error. Once people were available, the problem was fixed quickly.

   View case
3. IL-0503 mybinder.org launches failed after a GKE node ran out of memory and its nginx-ingress proxy pod crash-looped

   Binder Project2017

   Symptoms

   On 30 November 2017 at 16:59 PST, mybinder.org operators noticed that Grafana looked wrong and that launching a new server failed with an error that a temporary user could not be created. Pods that were already running kept running, but no new ones were being created.

   Service outageContainer crash loopProbe failuresOOMKilled

   Trigger

   A build container, which ran without a memory limit, most likely used up all the memory on the node that ran the proxy pod.

   Root cause

   Capacity exhaustion

   Component

   Ingress controllerContainer memory limitJupyterHub

   Contributing factor

   No resource requests or limitsHarmful manual actionNo alert on limit

   Detection

   An operator happened to look at Grafana at 16:59 PST, saw that it looked wrong, and confirmed the error by launching a new server.

   Remediation

   • Cordoned the node that had run out of memory
   • Uncordoned the node once the proxy was working

   Action items

   • Limit the memory available to build pods
   • Change the JupyterHub configuration so user pods are not cleaned up when the jupyterhub pod restarts
   • Nominate one person to drive the response, possibly in a shared terminal, so only one person changes the cluster
   • Alert when something is wrong with the cluster, for example by counting 4xx responses on the jupyterhub pod

   View case

By root cause2