Why AWS auto-scaling fails in shared subnets, and how to build a custom ledger to fix it. Have you ever seen this? It’s Friday afternoon. A massive load of files hits your pipeline. Initially, everything runs fine. Airflow scales up, tasks go green. But then, the failures start. At first, you assume it’s a data quality issue. But the AWS Console tells a different story. Your EMR clusters are terminating with a specific, infuriating message: Validation Error: Subnet does not have enough free addresses. Validation Error: Subnet does not have enough free addresse Congratulations, your weekend is gone. Instead of signing off, you are stuck babysitting the pipeline, manually hitting "retry" every time a subnet frees up enough space to squeeze in a cluster. I have been in this situation more times than I care to admit. When you run batch processing at scale, EMR is a greedy consumer of subnet IP addresses (and you never get the full CIDR range because AWS reserves 5 IPs per subnet). You might think you have "High Availability" because you listed three subnets across three Availability Zones (AZs). Even if you provide multiple subnets across AZs, EMR still launches the entire cluster into one “best fit” [3] subnet. If IP space is tight, you either get a hard failure (VALIDATION_ERROR) or something worse: a cluster that launches but runs without its task fleet (SUSPENDED), silently destroying throughput. VALIDATION_ERROR SUSPENDED This isn't a theoretical problem. In shared VPC environments, where multiple teams compete for the same CIDR blocks, this is the number one cause of "flaky" pipelines. Think of it as the network equivalent of vertical scaling. You are trying to solve an efficiency problem by blindly increasing resources. But just as you can’t vertically scale a server forever, you can’t expand a subnet indefinitely. Increasing the resource pool is never a sustainable solution for a structural allocation problem. Think of it as the network equivalent of vertical scaling. You are trying to solve an efficiency problem by blindly increasing resources. But just as you can’t vertically scale a server forever, you can’t expand a subnet indefinitely. Increasing the resource pool is never a sustainable solution for a structural allocation problem. Here is why the standard AWS advice fails, and the custom "IP Ledger" architecture I built to fix it. The Math That Breaks Your Pipeline The Math That Breaks Your Pipeline The textbook advice is simple: "Just use larger subnets."[1] In a perfect world, we would all have /16 CIDR blocks dedicated to our clusters. In reality, we work in shared corporate VPCs. IP space is a finite resource. /16 We usually mitigate this by providing a list of subnets to the EMR cluster request. AWS claims to handle this with its Allocation Strategy: it filters out subnets that lack enough IPs for the full cluster. If it can't fit the whole cluster, it attempts to launch just the "Essential" nodes (Primary + Core) and suspends the Task fleet [2]. This "fallback" behavior is precisely where the problem lies. The "Zombie Cluster" Risk: If EMR finds space for your Core nodes but not your Task nodes, it launches a crippled cluster. Your job runs, but without the Task fleet, it crawls at 10% speed, missing your SLAs.
The "Validation Error": If your Core fleet is large (e.g., using weighted capacity), EMR might fail to find any subnet with enough available IP addresses for even the essential nodes. The result? A critical VALIDATION_ERROR and immediate termination. The "Zombie Cluster" Risk: If EMR finds space for your Core nodes but not your Task nodes, it launches a crippled cluster. Your job runs, but without the Task fleet, it crawls at 10% speed, missing your SLAs. The "Zombie Cluster" Risk: The "Validation Error": If your Core fleet is large (e.g., using weighted capacity), EMR might fail to find any subnet with enough available IP addresses for even the essential nodes. The result? A critical VALIDATION_ERROR and immediate termination. The "Validation Error": any VALIDATION_ERROR Why does this happen? Why does this happen? It comes down to Instance Fleets with Weighted Capacity. If you use uniform instance groups (e.g., "Give me 10 r5.xlarge nodes"), the math is easy: you need 10 IPs plus the master node. But Instance Fleets are designed for spot pricing and flexibility. You define a "Target Capacity" (say, 500 units) and provide a list of instances with different weights: r5.xlarge r5.xlarge: weight 4
r5.4xlarge: weight 16 r5.xlarge: weight 4 r5.xlarge r5.4xlarge: weight 16 r5.4xlarge When EMR launches, it fulfills that 500-unit target; however, it can be based on Spot availability. Scenario A: AWS gives you ~31 r5.4xlarge instances. You need 32 IPs.
Scenario B: AWS gives you ~125 r5.xlarge instances. You need 126 IPs. Scenario A: AWS gives you ~31 r5.4xlarge instances. You need 32 IPs. Scenario A: r5.4xlarge Scenario B: AWS gives you ~125 r5.xlarge instances. You need 126 IPs. Scenario B: r5.xlarge Because you don't know which scenario you will get until runtime, you cannot rely on AWS’s "best effort" placement. If the scheduler picks a subnet with 50 free IPs and your fleet decides it needs 125 instances, you either get a failed job or a zombie job. The Real Gap: No Cross-Job Coordination Even if EMR picks a valid subnet for this job, it operates in a vacuum. EMR can filter subnets for a single cluster launch, but it doesn’t coordinate IP reservations across multiple concurrent DAGs or reserve space for future scale-out. this If five jobs launch simultaneously, they all query the VPC, see the same 100 free IPs, and race to claim them. The first one wins; the other four crash. That is why we need an external ledger. The Safety Net: The Retry Loop The Safety Net: The Retry Loop Before we build the ledger, we should address the standard fix: the retry loop. You can wrap your EMR sensor in Airflow to catch that specific Validation Error. If caught, don't just fail—trigger a restart of the upstream task. Validation Error Initially, I viewed this as a "lazy" fix. But even with the advanced ledger I describe below, I recommend keeping this retry loop as a fallback mechanism. Distributed systems are chaotic; if the ledger calculation drifts or a manual override blocks the subnets, this retry loop ensures the job eventually proceeds rather than halting the pipeline entirely. I recommend keeping this retry loop as a fallback mechanism. However, relying only on retries is brute force. It delays SLAs and pollutes your logs. We need a primary mechanism to prevent the error in the first place. only The Real Fix: Dynamic IP Accounting The Real Fix: Dynamic IP Accounting If you are tired of rolling the dice, you have to build your own ledger. AWS won't tell you exactly how many IPs you need until you ask, so you have to calculate it yourself before you even call the run_job_flow API. exactly run_job_flow I solved this by moving the decision logic out of AWS and into a DynamoDB state store. 1. The Architecture The core concept is a "Pre-flight Check" inside your Airflow DAG. 2. The Logic Flow 2. The Logic Flow Instead of passing a list of subnets to EMR, we force EMR to use a single, pre-validated subnet. The State Store: Create a DynamoDB table with SubnetId the key. Inside, we store a map of ActiveJobs and a running total of UsedIPs.
The Calculation: Before submitting the job, look at your Instance Fleet config. Calculate the Maximum Possible IP Demand (Pessimistic Math).
The Check: Query DynamoDB for the specific subnet. The formula is: (Total Subnet IPs - Current UsedIPs) > New Job Demand.
The Lock (Critical): Do not perform a "Read-Modify-Write" operation, or you will hit race conditions when multiple DAGs launch simultaneously. Instead, use a DynamoDB Atomic Update Expression. We send a single SET ActiveJobs.JobId = Demand ADD UsedIPs Demand command. This ensures that even if five jobs hit the database at the exact millisecond, DynamoDB queues the writes and updates the counter accurately without corruption.
The Cleanup: When the job finishes (or fails), a post-task removes the Job ID from the map and decrements UsedIPs. The State Store: Create a DynamoDB table with SubnetId the key. Inside, we store a map of ActiveJobs and a running total of UsedIPs. The State Store: SubnetId ActiveJobs UsedIPs The Calculation: Before submitting the job, look at your Instance Fleet config. Calculate the Maximum Possible IP Demand (Pessimistic Math). The Calculation: Maximum Possible IP Demand The Check: Query DynamoDB for the specific subnet. The formula is: (Total Subnet IPs - Current UsedIPs) > New Job Demand. The Check: (Total Subnet IPs - Current UsedIPs) > New Job Demand The Lock (Critical): Do not perform a "Read-Modify-Write" operation, or you will hit race conditions when multiple DAGs launch simultaneously. Instead, use a DynamoDB Atomic Update Expression. We send a single SET ActiveJobs.JobId = Demand ADD UsedIPs Demand command. This ensures that even if five jobs hit the database at the exact millisecond, DynamoDB queues the writes and updates the counter accurately without corruption. The Lock (Critical): Atomic Update Expression SET ActiveJobs.JobId = Demand ADD UsedIPs Demand The Cleanup: When the job finishes (or fails), a post-task removes the Job ID from the map and decrements UsedIPs. The Cleanup: UsedIPs The JSON Model: The JSON Model: { 
  "SubnetId": "subnet-0bb1c79de3EXAMPLE",
  "TotalCapacity": 4091,         // Calculated once: (Subnet CIDR size - 5 AWS Reserved IPs)
  "UsedIPs": 850,                // The Atomic Counter (Sum of all values in ActiveJobs)
  "ActiveJobs": {                // Map of currently running jobs for "JIT Cleanup" 
    "j-12345ABCDE": 500,         // Key: ClusterId, Value: Pessimistic IP Demand
    "j-67890FGHIJ": 350 
  }, 
  "LastUpdated": 1715347200       // Unix timestamp for debugging/auditing
} { 
  "SubnetId": "subnet-0bb1c79de3EXAMPLE",
  "TotalCapacity": 4091,         // Calculated once: (Subnet CIDR size - 5 AWS Reserved IPs)
  "UsedIPs": 850,                // The Atomic Counter (Sum of all values in ActiveJobs)
  "ActiveJobs": {                // Map of currently running jobs for "JIT Cleanup" 
    "j-12345ABCDE": 500,         // Key: ClusterId, Value: Pessimistic IP Demand
    "j-67890FGHIJ": 350 
  }, 
  "LastUpdated": 1715347200       // Unix timestamp for debugging/auditing
} Why not just use the AWS Subnet API? Why not just use the AWS Subnet API? A common question is: "Why not just call ec2.describe_subnets() to check AvailableIpAddressCount?" "Why not just call ec2.describe_subnets() AvailableIpAddressCount The answer is latency vs. intent. The AWS API tells you the current state of the subnet. It does not account for the five other Airflow jobs that just launched milliseconds ago and are about to request IPs. It also doesn't account for auto-scaling "intent"—a job might currently have 10 nodes but is configured to scale to 500. latency vs. intent. current If you rely on the AWS API, you are reacting to the past. The ledger allows you to book capacity for the future. 3. Two Approaches: Optimist vs. Pessimist This is the most critical decision in the architecture. You have two ways to calculate the IP demand, and the choice defines your risk profile. The Optimist Approach: You calculate demand based on the minimum core nodes defined in your config. The Optimist Approach The Win: You are efficient. You leave plenty of room in the ledger for other jobs.
The Risk: The "Slow Crawl" failure. If your job hits a data spike and tries to auto-scale, it hits the subnet ceiling. EMR won't crash, but it won't scale. Your 1-hour job turns into a 5-hour job, blowing your SLAs. The Win: You are efficient. You leave plenty of room in the ledger for other jobs. The Win: The Risk: The "Slow Crawl" failure. If your job hits a data spike and tries to auto-scale, it hits the subnet ceiling. EMR won't crash, but it won't scale. Your 1-hour job turns into a 5-hour job, blowing your SLAs. The Risk: The "Slow Crawl" failure The Pessimist Approach (Recommended): You calculate demand based on the Total Target Capacity (Task + Core) using the smallest instance weight. The Pessimist Approach (Recommended) Total Target Capacity (Task + Core) smallest instance weight The Win: Guaranteed throughput. If the job needs to scale, the network space is already booked.
The Risk: You might "over-reserve" IPs in the DynamoDB ledger that aren't actually used, temporarily blocking other jobs. The Win: Guaranteed throughput. If the job needs to scale, the network space is already booked. The Win: The Risk: You might "over-reserve" IPs in the DynamoDB ledger that aren't actually used, temporarily blocking other jobs. The Risk: I choose the Pessimist approach every time. I’d rather have a job wait 10 minutes in the queue for a clear subnet than have a job run for 5 hours because it couldn't get the IPs to scale. def calculate_max_ip_demand(target_capacity, instance_config):
  """
  Determines the maximum IPs a fleet might consume.
  Always assumes AWS fulfills demand using the smallest/lightest instance type
  """
  min_weight = min([inst['WeightedCapacity'] for inst in instance_config])
  
  # Ceiling division to ensure we cover partial units
  max_nodes_needed = math.ceil(target_capacity / min_weight)

  # Add buffer for Master node + overhead
  return max_nodes_needed + 2 def calculate_max_ip_demand(target_capacity, instance_config):
  """
  Determines the maximum IPs a fleet might consume.
  Always assumes AWS fulfills demand using the smallest/lightest instance type
  """
  min_weight = min([inst['WeightedCapacity'] for inst in instance_config])
  
  # Ceiling division to ensure we cover partial units
  max_nodes_needed = math.ceil(target_capacity / min_weight)

  # Add buffer for Master node + overhead
  return max_nodes_needed + 2 The "Self-Healing" Ledger Initially, I considered running a separate "Janitor DAG" to clean up stale locks. But that introduces a lag: if the Janitor runs every hour, you could be blocked by "ghost" jobs for 59 minutes. A better approach is Just-In-Time Cleanup. Just-In-Time Cleanup Before our operator attempts to reserve IPs for a new job, it performs a quick sanity check on the DynamoDB table. It scans for any "reserved" entries and cross-references them with the actual AWS EMR API. Is the Cluster ID associated with this lock TERMINATED or COMPLETED?
Does the Cluster ID not exist at all (failed start)? Is the Cluster ID associated with this lock TERMINATED or COMPLETED? TERMINATED COMPLETED Does the Cluster ID not exist at all (failed start)? If yes, the operator forcefully releases those IPs before calculating availability for the current job. This makes the pipeline self-healing; even if a previous Airflow worker crashed hard and failed to unlock, the next job automatically fixes the ledger. before Is This Over-Engineering? Maybe. Building a custom state-store for IP addresses is something the cloud provider should handle for us. should But in data engineering, "should" doesn't save your weekend. Until the EMR API gets smarter about subnet capacity awareness, we are stuck doing the math ourselves. By treating IP addresses as a resource to be managed rather than an infinite utility, we turned a constant Friday fire drill into a handled edge case. Technical Note: Since DynamoDB reads and EMR describe_clusters calls are millisecond-fast, adding this pre-flight cleanup adds negligible time to the pipeline startup, but saves hours of potential debugging. Technical Note: Technical Note: Since DynamoDB reads and EMR describe_clusters calls are millisecond-fast, adding this pre-flight cleanup adds negligible time to the pipeline startup, but saves hours of potential debugging. References [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/emr/latest/ManagementGuide/emr-instance-fleet.html [2] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/emr/latest/ManagementGuide/emr-instance-fleet.html#allocation-strategy-for-instance-fleets [3] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/emr/latest/APIReference/API_Ec2InstanceAttributes.html

Target

Zones

Can Google's Agent Development Kit Replace Data Pipelines?

EMR IP Exhaustion in Shared VPCs: Why Autoscaling Fails and How to Fix It

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Can Google's Agent Development Kit Replace Data Pipelines?

Can Google's Agent Development Kit Replace Data Pipelines?

Apache Airflow And Its Contribution to Enterprise Data Integration

Apache Airflow: Is It a Good Tool for Data Quality Checks?

Creating Data Pipelines With Apache Airflow and MinIO

Optimizing Airflow: A Case Study in Cloud Resource Efficiency

Can Google's Agent Development Kit Replace Data Pipelines?

Can Google's Agent Development Kit Replace Data Pipelines?

Apache Airflow And Its Contribution to Enterprise Data Integration

Apache Airflow: Is It a Good Tool for Data Quality Checks?

Creating Data Pipelines With Apache Airflow and MinIO

Optimizing Airflow: A Case Study in Cloud Resource Efficiency

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps