I'd couldn't disagree more, assuming that the standard naming convention is reasonably well designed.
For servers, we use the 3 letter city code, followed by a set of descriptive abbreviations and an ordinal number. I can pretty much guarantee that any reasonably intelligent[1] observer would have no problem knowing or at least guessing what the server does: ATLDC2 Atlanta DC #2 ATLPSDEV1 Atlanta PeopleSoft Development envrionment DALEXMB1 Dallas Exchange Mailbox Server #1 CONEXCON1 Concord Exchange Connector Server #1 Now - we have also used common names for other boxes as well. What are Tungsten, Beryllium and Cerium? How about Socrates, Copernicus and Kepler? The last 3 are my personal workstation and 2 servers at the house. When you have 5 machines, its easy to use that kind of naming standard. When you manage 200+ in 9 different locations with a staff of 6, that becomes a much less optimal solution. Roger -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] Probably any life form higher than SSM[2] [2] Strategically Shaved Monkey > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:27 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: Re: Desktop naming conventions > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:21:22AM -0600, Fanta, Ken said: > > > Another example is SSUNH-TS1. The S stands for Sever. SUN is the > > location Sun Prairie, H in this example is Headquarters and > the TS1 is > > the server name in this case Terminal Server 1 > > How many locations/machines are we talking about here? Do > you give your servers "real names" as well? > > If I said to you "Ken, can you go and check out the web > server, it appears to be down," how would you know what to > connect to off the top of your head? What if you got > confused, because you weren't sure if you needed to connect > to SSUNH-WB6 or SSUNH-WB2? > > What if you called them "Parry" and "Worzel?" I bet you'd > remember which one had which service. We're not robots, > we're humans, and that's one reason I don't believe in these > 'logical' naming conventions. > > If you were instructed to repair a web server, physically, > you would probably have to look it up in your register anyway > to find out which server you're supposed to be fixing, > because it's pretty unlikely your brain is going to remember > what does what, unless you're working on the same servers constantly. > > Considering it's more likely that you're going to be > connecting to a server remotely rather than physically, > wouldn't it make more sense to minimize the amount of > cross-referencing you need to do, by making the names easier > to remember? Your system means you can find a server > physically really easily, and that's great, but what about > finding it remotely? One of my friends works for a major ISP > in Australia here, and they have hundreds of servers and > routers, all with 'illogical' names. It's interesting to > note, however, that he can identify various routers and > servers around that network (a vast majority of them) by > their 'illogical name.' Had they followed the alternative > naming conventions for their routers and servers, I'm sure > he'd remember only a small portion of what he had in his network. > > > Even if you stuck to a sort of naming convention, eg. Naming > all the servers in Sun Prairie after the Simpsons (or > whatever) would still "group" them as families, just like > your naming convention does. But what it doesn't do is make > them easily remembered from a remote location when you're > trying to administer. > > If I had just connected to "SWASH-FB6" all day and then a > week later I had to go back, without checking my diary or > other logs, it's unlikely I'd remember that combination of > letters. But if I remembered the name of the server was > "Jackie-O," "Targus" or "Megatron," I'd probably remember > which one I was working on all day. > > > This convention lets me know where that machine is at any > given time > > just by looking at the name. > > How much physical access do you really need? > > > -- > Adam Smith > Information Technology Officer > SAGE Automation Ltd. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.sageautomation.com > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%% > ------ You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
