Cases2 cases

1 to 2 of 2

1. IL-0214 PagerDuty's Kafka brokers ran out of JVM heap one after another, and the event APIs rejected events with 502 responses

   PagerDuty2025

   Symptoms

   When a Kafka cluster of PagerDuty's US Service Regions began failing at 03:53 UTC on 28 August 2025, the first alerts pointed to one failing broker. More brokers then ran out of memory, and PagerDuty's event APIs began rejecting incoming events with a response status code of 502 while notifications, webhooks, chat integrations and the REST API degraded.

   Memory pressureHigh error rateThroughput degradation

   Trigger

   A new feature that recorded API key usage in a Kafka topic was being rolled out by configuration: 1% on 21 August, 5% and then 25% on 27 August, and 75% on 28 August. A logical error in the feature created a new Kafka producer for every API request instead of reusing one producer.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   Message broker

   Contributing factor

   Monitoring blind spotSignal buried in noiseChange with a delayed effectExcessive blast radius

   Detection

   Alerts pointed to one failing Kafka broker at the start of the first incident, and alerts fired again at 16:38 UTC when Kafka performance degraded for the second time. Critical alerts about core API errors were buried among webhook pages.

   Remediation

   • Expanded the Kafka cluster and removed the first failing broker
   • Doubled the Kafka broker heap size and applied it with a rolling restart across the cluster
   • Added status page updates by hand through backup procedures when automated publishing failed
   • Recovered Kafka-dependent services, some by manual intervention, and backfilled lost data with scripts
   • In the second incident, doubled the heap again with another rolling restart
   • Rolled back the API usage feature with a pull request that stopped it from publishing Kafka messages

   Action items

   • Remove the dependency that blocked status page automation and simplify and republish the manual runbook
   • Run live drills regularly so status updates go out even when parts of the platform are degraded
   • Expand JVM and Kafka monitoring of heap, garbage collection and producer and consumer health
   • Strengthen service dependency mapping so cascading failures are easier to trace
   • Collect customer impact metrics into incident workflows automatically
   • Add stricter change management guardrails, with readiness checklists and slower ramp-up windows for major rollouts
   • Improve recovery mechanisms in the streaming systems
   • Automate communication workflows such as status page updates, internal and external syncs and reminders
   • Test major incident workflows monthly with chaos engineering, such as status page failover
   • Define clearer incident severity levels and roles, including dedicated communications liaisons

   Lessons

   PagerDuty found its message processing more intricate than it had thought: some services had to be restarted to pick up changes, some API activity produced far more messages than expected, and it was hard to tell which parts of the system put heavy load on Kafka. Because producers and JVM heap were barely observed, responders could not see the first failure until several downstream systems were affected, and no one on the call held a model of the whole system. Enabling the feature through configuration rather than a separate deployment was meant as a safety step but made the outage harder to link to the change. Runbooks and backfill scripts were imperfect but gave responders a head start, and the second incident was mitigated in about 50 minutes by repeating the first incident's steps.

   View case
2. IL-0591 Gitpod workspaces in all regions became IO bound and unresponsive for days after the ws39 workspace cluster release

   Gitpod2022

   Symptoms

   From April 11, 2022 at 13:17 UTC customers and Gitpod staff reported that Gitpod workspaces were intermittently becoming unresponsive. CPU usage of nodes and pods looked normal, with nothing maxed out, and at 13:58 UTC the team found that the workspaces were IO bound rather than CPU bound.

   Throughput degradationSustained high node CPUNode NotReadyData loss

   Trigger

   The ws39 generation of workspace clusters, released to all regional clusters on April 8th at 20:08 UTC and to the XL clusters on April 9th at 17:45 UTC, split the 1TB disk into smaller RAID0 disks, changed CPU limiting and workspace networking, and moved to faster machine types.

   Root cause

   Faulty deployment

   Component

   Node root diskContainer CPU limit

   Contributing factor

   No staged rolloutGap in automated testsUnrepresentative stagingUnknown limitOverlapping failuresIneffective rollbackHarmful manual actionLimited debug access

   Detection

   Customers and Gitpod staff reported on April 11th at 13:17 UTC that workspaces were intermittently unresponsive, and the team opened an incident in Slack through its incident.io integration. On April 17th the team noticed increased CPU load on the workspace nodes and opened an internal incident.

   Remediation

   • Shifted workspace starts back to the ws38 clusters on April 11th
   • Built ws39a clusters with c2d machines and local SSDs and moved traffic to them
   • Requested a limit increase from Let's Encrypt
   • Routed EU XL traffic to the regional EU cluster and built ws-eu39bxl to replace the crashed ws-eu39xl
   • Cleaned up workspaces stuck in a stopping state so users could start them again
   • Released ws40 with 1TB boot disks to get more IO bandwidth
   • Removed the workspaces that consumed excessive CPU time for crypto-mining
   • Blocked the fraudulent users behind the crypto-mining from using Gitpod
   • Rolled back the ws-daemon change that broke CPU limiting and shipped the fix in the ws34 clusters
   • Blocked ACME HTTP requests to workspace ports so Let's Encrypt rate limits would not be hit again
   • Rolled out IO limiting with the ws41xl and ws41 clusters and moved traffic to them step by step

   Action items

   • Invest in test automation so that test results stop releases like this one
   • Vary the interval between traffic shifts to new clusters, with more time for larger releases
   • Add a risk assessment stage, to be automated, that governs changeset size and rollout speed of workspace cluster rollouts
   • Reduce the impact teams have on each other
   • Add review criteria that find backwards incompatible changes before pull requests are merged, and split such pull requests
   • Recommend rollback as the primary means of mitigation in the incident procedures, and look at automating it
   • Make the status page show the workspace service as down when it is, and update the playbooks
   • Keep incident communication in a single Slack channel and Google Meet
   • Put 10% of the engineering staff on the on-call rotation from May 9th and use that time on observability, alerting and stability

   Lessons

   Gitpod concluded that it should have committed to rolling back on April 11th instead of building and shipping fixes, which kept customers on degraded workspaces longer than necessary. A large release so soon after the previous one needed a risk assessment and slower traffic shifts, and backwards incompatible changes that block a rollback need to be found before pull requests are merged. Failure-free operations require experience with failure.

   View case

By root cause1