3 ms·
Or simply have a naming convention for hosts. I realize that only makes sense for sufficiently large setups, but once your setup is large enough, it does make t
by perlgeek 13y ago
Or simply have a naming convention for hosts. I realize that only makes sense for sufficiently large setups, but once your setup is large enough, it does make things easier.
At $work we maintain setups for customers, and our FQDNs are roughly <function><counter><environment>.<customer>.<ourdomain>.tld. So the second database server in the testing environment for customer "nasa" (hypothetical, of course) would be called db02t.nasa.<ourdomain>.<tld>.
It does make it pretty obvious from the FQDN what the used is being used for.
- tillk 13y agoI agree with this. Call servers after their purpose. I don't grow attached to servers anymore — especially in the cloud.
- robbles 13y agoIt looks like there's two types of answers in this thread, and the difference between them is whether their infrastructure is cloud-based or running in a datacenter: - Cloud: "Who cares? Name them after pokemon or dinosaurs, you can always reprovision and they won't last very long." - Datacenter: "But what if the name doesn't make sense 16 months from now??"