On 04/08/2010 01:10 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote: > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Shawn O'Shea <sh...@eth0.net> wrote: > >> I've always felt that at a minimum servers deserve real names. >> > It really depends on the environment. The more commoditized things > are, the less sense it makes to have fancy names. If you've got a 100 > node server farm for some massive web site project, everything's an > interchangeable part, and it's likely machines are dedicated to single > tasks. OTOH, small orgs usually have a small number of multi-purpose > servers, and roles get moved around between them a lot, so it makes > more sense for the servers to be unique entities in their own right. > > As Mark Komarinski already mentioned, it's always a very good idea > to have generic service names for roles, and alias those names to the > machines filling the role. > > I hate the scheme we use at work: LOCXXnn, where location would be bos, tor, ny for location, XX=lc for Linux computer. The switches, NAS devices and KVMs also have names like that. Only the printer was able to avoid the naming scheme.
-- Jerry Feldman <g...@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
