Skip to content

Improve ClusterAutoscalerFailedScaling alert to reduce false positives #1646

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 10, 2025

Conversation

njuettner
Copy link
Member

Towards: https://github.com/giantswarm/giantswarm/issues/33440

This PR improves the ClusterAutoscalerFailedScaling alert to reduce false positives by combining two expressions:

  • More than 3 failures in the last 15 minutes AND
  • Recent failures in the last 5 minutes (ensuring it's an ongoing issue)

@njuettner njuettner marked this pull request as ready for review June 6, 2025 11:18
@njuettner njuettner requested a review from a team as a code owner June 6, 2025 11:18
@njuettner njuettner requested a review from a team June 6, 2025 11:18
runbook_url: https://intranet.giantswarm.io/docs/support-and-ops/ops-recipes/cluster-autoscaler-scaling/
expr: cluster_autoscaler_failed_scale_ups_total{provider=~"capa|capz|eks"} > 0
for: 15m
expr: increase(cluster_autoscaler_failed_scale_ups_total{provider=~"capa|capz|eks"}[15m]) > 3 and rate(cluster_autoscaler_failed_scale_ups_total{provider=~"capa|capz|eks"}[5m]) > 0
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These values aren't right I don't think. We had a legit issue that this alert should have caught with cicdprod on the 27th but this doesn't catch it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok thanks I'll investigate

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also I think we can drop that provider label. Not sure why we'd need that. We only have autoscaler on CAPA anyway

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

image It might be changing it to > 1 would fire it properly WDYT?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah but I think you'll then need to drop the for and just have it trigger as soon as it goes over the value

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah removed for, dropped the provider and adjusted the increase

@njuettner njuettner merged commit 29410fb into main Jun 10, 2025
7 checks passed
@njuettner njuettner deleted the qwrfe branch June 10, 2025 09:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants