> -----Original Message----- > From: David Phillips [SMTP:david at acz.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 12:12 AM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: Re: [TCLUG] Server naming conventions > > Smith, Craig A (MN14) writes: > > At the north end of last Friday's beer meeting, there was a > > discussion about server naming conventions. I opined the names of 7 > > dwarfs works only until you get an 8th server. > > [...] > > I'm curious as to why you'd need to arbitrarily make up a bunch of server > names. I've always named servers after their function. That practice has > been used everywhere I've worked. When you have names like www, ns, > backup, > db, mail, etc., followed by numbers, it is obvious what each box does. > > It keeps you from saying ``fox is down again'', with people left asking > ``is > that the mail server or the database server?''. Now, if you're starting a > project and need a codename for it, you might pick a short name like > ``ant'', and thus name the server that, but that's different than everyday > production servers. People would still know what the server was if they > knew about the project. > > -- > David Phillips <david at acz.org> > http://david.acz.org/ > I tend to agree, I don't like "cute" server names. My co-worker named a test mail server "Cliff" -- dumb. The only problem I have with using names that totally describe function is that if a cracker gets to a server named "payroll" they know they are better off than if they get to one named "radius". I generally go server1, server2,... boring but functional. I think it is a *nix thing though to like weird naming. I mean their are so many recursive acronyms etc. I support *nix and use it because it is about the most reliable thing we have, not because I think it is really that great of design. _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list