Cases12 cases

1 to 5 of 12

1. IL-0058 Argo CD deleted namespaces shared by several applications, leaving about 97 applications stuck Missing and OutOfSync

   Argo CD users2026

   Symptoms

   After a rolling restart of the Argo CD application-controller, namespaces that several applications shared went into the Terminating state. About 97 applications were then stuck in a Missing/OutOfSync deadlock.

   Resources deleted

   Trigger

   A manual bulk sync with force: true from the Argo CD UI, run during the window after an application-controller restart, on an application whose manifests declared a namespace whose app.kubernetes.io/instance label pointed to a different application.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Argo CD

   Contributing factor

   No safeguard on destructive changeUnverified assumptionHarmful manual action

   Action items

   • Refile the problem as #29739: a manual force sync hard-replaces shared cluster-scoped resources through a tracking-ID conflict, ignoring Prune=false

   Lessons

   The sync option Prune=false only protects the prune path; it does not stop a force sync from deleting and recreating a resource. When two Argo CD applications declare the same namespace or other cluster-scoped resource, force-syncing the application that does not own the tracking label can delete it at any time.

   View case
2. IL-0124 Capacity changes queued while a circuit breaker was engaged ran all at once when it was released, taking multiple OpenAI inference engines out of service and raising API error rates

   OpenAI2026

   Symptoms

   Between about 4:26 PM and 4:56 PM PST on 4 March 2026, some OpenAI API requests to several models failed or took longer than usual, and some Codex traffic was affected too. The overall API success rate dropped temporarily.

   High error rateHigh latency

   Trigger

   A protective circuit breaker that had paused some scheduling operations was released, and the infrastructure actions queued during the pause were executed at the same time.

   Root cause

   Software defect

   Component

   Automated capacity manager

   Contributing factor

   Automation amplificationChange with a delayed effectNo safeguard on destructive changeMonitoring blind spot

   Remediation

   • manually reassigned infrastructure resources to the affected models
   • brought the removed inference engines back online and reassigned them until error rates returned to normal

   Action items

   • Improve safeguards in the automated capacity management systems so they detect and respond to state drift
   • Improve observability of circuit breakers and scheduling systems so their status and effects are easier to identify
   • Add safeguards so queued actions cannot run in large batches after long pauses
   • Improve monitoring and alerting around capacity reconciliation problems

   Lessons

   Pausing one automated system does not stop the systems that feed it. Changes queued during the pause reflect the state at the time they were queued, and releasing the queue all at once applies those stale decisions together. The fixes OpenAI names are detecting state drift, making circuit breaker status visible, and preventing large batches from executing after a long pause.

   View case
3. IL-0095 An engineer deleted the prod namespace of the LEAP JupyterHub while believing the kubeconfig pointed at a new cluster, and the hub was down for about an hour

   2i2c2025

   Symptoms

   At 5:00 PM BST on 12 August 2025 a 2i2c engineer declared an incident. While deploying a new cluster called temple and running into NFS issues, the engineer had deleted the prod namespace; the deletion hung, and listing the pods showed many users from a different cluster. The engineer's first message suggested that the kubeconfig had somehow been mutated or corrupted and that some other cluster was being torn down.

   Resources deletedService outage

   Trigger

   While working around a bug in the NFS deployment process for a new hub, an engineer ran a delete of the prod namespace with the kubeconfig context pointing at the LEAP cluster.

   Root cause

   Operator error

   Component

   Persistent volumes and stateful setsJobs and CronJobsIngress controllerTerraform

   Contributing factor

   No safeguard on destructive changeNo runbook

   Detection

   The engineer who ran the deletion noticed when it hung and the pod list showed users of another cluster, and declared the incident at 5:00 PM BST, before the uptime check on leap.2i2c.cloud failed at 5:32 PM.

   Remediation

   • deleted the single remaining user pod in prod so the namespace deletion completed
   • killed the nfs-share-creator job that was blocking the deployment
   • redeployed the prod hub with the updated NFS server IP address
   • deleted the prod ingress during the deployment so that users could not start servers mid-deployment

   Action items

   • Write an incident report
   • Write a short incident response document for the case "I deleted prod, what next?"
   • Upgrade jupyterhub-home-nfs and remove the nfs-share-creator job
   • Add opt-in hardening against nested kubeconfig contexts to the deployer system
   • Change the engineer's shell configuration to show distinct kubeconfig contexts more clearly

   Lessons

   Provisioning persistent storage outside Kubernetes with Terraform meant a deleted namespace cost an hour of downtime and no data. The engineer had no visible cue for which kubeconfig context was active, which turned a workaround on a new cluster into a deletion on a production one. The engineer knew the fix but did not feel confident redeploying without first confirming with the tech lead, in another time zone, that there was no risk of losing persistent data, and reaching the tech lead took time.

   View case
4. IL-0121 A faulty code change to a control plane cluster meant for low-priority workloads degraded the production inference workloads it also managed

   OpenAI2025

   Symptoms

   Between 2:10 PM and 3:05 PM PDT on July 9, 2025, success rates of the gpt-4.1-mini model in the API dropped for about 20 minutes, and ChatGPT search returned many more errors than usual for about 35 minutes.

   High error rate

   Trigger

   A faulty code change was deployed to a control plane cluster whose main job is managing low-priority workloads.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   –

   Contributing factor

   Excessive blast radiusNo safeguard on destructive change

   Remediation

   • rolled back the faulty code change

   Action items

   • Add safeguards that prevent production inference workloads from being managed by the low-priority control plane cluster
   • Strengthen testing for deploying high-impact control plane changes
   • Move all existing production inference workloads under the production control plane cluster
   • Build a circuit breaker that stops large-scale unintended changes

   View case
5. IL-0192 A Crossplane composition merge-policy change for a TLS policy update switched Kubernetes Services from LoadBalancer to ClusterIP and deleted the load balancers behind about 25% of Grafana Cloud services

   Grafana Labs2025

   Symptoms

   At 08:41 UTC on 18 February 2025, several Grafana Labs application teams noticed that some of their endpoints were no longer available. The investigation quickly found that the load balancers for those endpoints were gone.

   Service outageResources deleted

   Trigger

   A change to the merge policy of a Crossplane composition, made so that the default TLS policy of the load balancers could be overridden, was applied to development, staging and production at the same time.

   Root cause

   Configuration change

   Component

   Configuration templatingCloud load balancer

   Contributing factor

   Unverified assumptionNo staged rolloutExcessive blast radiusNo safeguard on destructive change

   Detection

   Application teams noticed at 08:41 UTC that some of their endpoints were no longer available.

   Remediation

   • rolled back the Crossplane composition change
   • recreated the affected Kubernetes Services so that Kubernetes recreated their load balancers

   Action items

   • Add a CI check that blocks a deployment to more than one wave, so any exception to the dev, staging, canary, production order is caught
   • Give higher priority to a more sophisticated wave design that was already under discussion
   • Enable deletion protection on the load balancers, one layer below Crossplane
   • Enable deletion protection on other critical cloud provider resources
   • Develop the Crossplane Managed Resources exporter for change validation and visibility, now in beta testing within Platform engineering; simulated against the change that caused this outage, it shows a clear diff
   • Complete and test support for reconfiguring the TLS policy so application teams can deploy it

   Lessons

   A change that looked small and low-risk had a side effect that only a full end-to-end test through Crossplane and the cloud provider's load balancer controller would have shown; seeing the intended override work was not that test. Staged rollout and blast-radius limits that exist only as process can be skipped, so Grafana Labs moved to enforce waves in CI and to add deletion protection on the load balancers themselves, beneath the Crossplane layer.

   View case

By root cause4