Skip to main content
KBY Technologies Logo
Kubernetes & Containers

etcd Leader Election Storm After GKE Disk Type Migration

Container orchestration incidents involving scheduling, networking, admission, resource pressure, rollouts, and cluster control planes.

Daily engineering quiz

One incident. Four plausible moves. Instant technical reasoning.

About 2 minutes
01Read the signals
02Choose a move
03Reveal reasoning

Incident brief

A regional GKE cluster (5-node etcd quorum, kube-apiserver fronting ~15,000 RPS of production traffic) underwent a cost-optimisation change overnight. Terraform migrated etcd data volumes from local-SSD to network-attached PD-balanced disks, rolled out as a canary to 2 of 5 etcd members starting 02:14 UTC.

At 02:19 UTC, etcd_disk_wal_fsync_duration_seconds p99 on the two migrated members jumped from a steady 8ms to 220ms, and has stayed elevated. Leader election counts, previously near zero for weeks, rose to 14 in the last hour. kube-apiserver p99 latency for LIST/WATCH requests climbed from 180ms to 3.2s, and several kubelets began flapping between Ready and NotReady as heartbeat updates were delayed.

VPC flow logs show inter-peer etcd network latency stable at ~0.4ms with no packet loss, and the unmigrated three etcd members show normal fsync times throughout. On-call has two competing hypotheses circulating: first, that the new PD-balanced volumes lack a dedicated IOPS/throughput reservation and are experiencing contention from co-located workloads on the same storage backend, directly causing the fsync latency and downstream leader churn; second, that a recent NIC firmware update pushed to the underlying node pool last week introduced intermittent micro-drops not visible in aggregate flow logs, and the disk migration is coincidental.

The migration Terraform run is currently paused mid-canary, with three members untouched and two already cut over; rolling forward or backward both require a maintenance window per change policy, though emergency rollback is technically permitted given active degradation. There is no approved cross-region failover runbook exercised in the last two quarters, and API server error budgets are already 40% consumed this month.

Customer-facing symptoms include intermittent 5xx responses on ingress controllers reliant on API server admission webhooks, though core workload pods remain running.

Decision point

Given the etcd wal fsync correlation, stable peer network latency, and the fact that only the two migrated members exhibit the fault, what should the on-call Staff Engineer do next to stabilise the control plane while preserving evidence for root-cause confirmation?

Choose your first move

Choose your first move

Question 1 of 1

Pick the intervention you would prioritise. Every option is plausible; the challenge is deciding what should happen first with the evidence available.

Make your initial decision, then use the deep dive to investigate the underlying failure mode.

Open technical deep dive