As a sysadmin who deals with several clients with different naming conventions wrt server hostnames, i feel like both schools annoy me; for example one of our

As a sysadmin who deals with several clients with different naming conventions wrt server hostnames, i feel like both schools annoy me; for example one of our clients has FRPRTFSQL02, where fr is france, pr is production, tf is the app this server relates to, sql is the type of service this hosts, and 02 is sequential, so for an sql server this means it's most likely a ro replica. On the other hand, another client names their servers just "montana", "barcelone" or "morroco" with no relation to the geographic aspect of the name. In both cases, and maybe this is just because i work and exist in this wierd liminal space where i care about the server but not what's on it (if i end up caring what's on it, i find out what i care about by looking at logs etc, not the name) so both ends of the spectrum tell me absolutely nothing about the machine and it's just an annoyance to remember them. I find cute names easier to remember and tell my coworkers about, for what that's worth. On my own infra, i name my servers with simple descriptive names, like "matrix" is hosting matrix and "play" is hosting game servers, but i don't have the infrastructure for that to be a problem (ie i do not have 2 copies of anything running) so i can afford to do it, but i know it's not a good solution.