4 ms·
I wish I could upvote you a thousand times. Naming discussions are classic bikeshedding. Everyone has an opinion, they'll argue endlessly and vigorously for t
by theBobMcCormick 16y ago
I wish I could upvote you a thousand times. Naming discussions are classic bikeshedding. Everyone has an opinion, they'll argue endlessly and vigorously for their preferred naming scheme, and in the end it has very little real impact.
IMHO, almost any attempt to create some kind of meaning in the naming convention ends up sub-optimal. For example, I've seen people include information about the server hardware or OS in the name (ie something like dellwinnt01), or locations (atl-row1-01), etc. All of which fail miserably when there are server hardware/software update, data center moves, etc.
In the end, a server name should be easy to say, easy to spell, easy to remember, and shouldn't be anything that's likely to be controversial or offensive. No other criteria really matter.
- lsc 16y agoYeah. I remember one place that did the thing where they named the box based on the rack and the 'slot' in the rack. the problem was that this was the /primary key/ in the database so as troublesome hosts got swapped out for diagnostics, we lost their history. We had no idea if this was the second time the box was sent in for diagnostics, or the 50th.
- tomjen3 16y agoEasy solution to that: put a label on the box and put a line there when it comes in for diagnostics.
- lsc 16y agoThis place had something like five thousand servers over several data centers. Like most places that size or larger, the admin never actually sees the servers. You (the admin) get a serial console and at best tell the monkey to replace part X or Y. At worst, it gets shipped back to dell, and reported as a new box when dell doesn't fix it (dell never fixes intermittent problems, unless you can tell them /exactly/ what the problem is. )