11 ms·

Cute naming schemes are a holdover from the days of physical servers when location, function, etc were subject to change so an immutable machine name couldn't c

Cute naming schemes are a holdover from the days of physical servers when location, function, etc were subject to change so an immutable machine name couldn't contain them. Now that most things are virtual and easily created/destroyed there's no good reason _not_ to name functionally. The most common refrain I've heard in defense of these archaic naming practices is that "we don't want the hackers to know which server does what" but if they've managed to get your root DNS zone file or a shell on a box then you're already pretty far gone anyway (not to mention that nmap exists). All it does is impede productivity and create the illusion of security. If you are dealing with assets in a physical environment then obviously the above doesn't apply. As a side note: a long time ago (before I knew what I was doing) I ran a Windows Server environment for my dad's business. The main server was Jake and the off-site backup was Elwood.

1996 6y ago
> Now that most things are virtual and easily created/destroyed there's no good reason _not_ to name functionally. Uh, my servers with at least 256G of RAM and a raid60 of more drives than you have virtual machines can't easily be moved around. > If you are dealing with assets in a physical environment then obviously the above doesn't apply. Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance!
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance! Single function bare metal, that is. At which point, the boring functional naming scheme re-applies easily. If you're running multiple different functions on a single box, how are you guaranteeing any performance for any single function? How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features?
  - 1996 6y ago
    > How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features? Depends on what you think is the most costly: kernel control of processes, or hypervisor control of kernels controlling processes. Based on my experience, no hypervisor is worth the trouble if you have the budget for dedicated servers. > If you're running multiple different functions on a single box The thing is, you don't do that unless you must.

1996 6y ago

> Now that most things are virtual and easily created/destroyed there's no good reason _not_ to name functionally. Uh, my servers with at least 256G of RAM and a raid60 of more drives than you have virtual machines can't easily be moved around. > If you are dealing with assets in a physical environment then obviously the above doesn't apply. Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance!

oarsinsync 6y ago
> Yes, baremetal, the only way to guarantee performance! Single function bare metal, that is. At which point, the boring functional naming scheme re-applies easily. If you're running multiple different functions on a single box, how are you guaranteeing any performance for any single function? How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features?
- 1996 6y ago
  > How does that differ from using a hypervisor with similar limiting features? Depends on what you think is the most costly: kernel control of processes, or hypervisor control of kernels controlling processes. Based on my experience, no hypervisor is worth the trouble if you have the budget for dedicated servers. > If you're running multiple different functions on a single box The thing is, you don't do that unless you must.