Internet history

[Jerry Feldman]

On 04/08/2010 01:10 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Shawn O'Shea <shawn at 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 <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20100409/c88a965c/attachment.bin