Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Do We Name Servers the Way We Do?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the just-no-more-muppets-please dept.

jfruhlinger writes "If you use a Unix machine, it probably has a funny name. And if you work in an environment where there are multiple Unix machines, they probably have funny names that are variations on a theme. No, you're not the only one! This article explores the phenomenon, showing that even the CIA uses a whimsical server naming scheme." What are some of your best (worst?) naming schemes?

8 of 1,397 comments (clear)

  1. Wines, cheeses, trees by radixzer0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A goofy naming scheme is a bad idea when you're running over 100 servers in a dynamic environment. When your servers are named after wines, cheeses, and trees, who can say what Oak does, or Chablis, or Feta, or Jujuba, or Sassafras, ad nauseum.

    -r0

    1. Re:Wines, cheeses, trees by repvik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Duh, you don't refer to the servers by name directly, it's just a name.
      Use CNAME with functionality pointing to that server. Naming a server "www" is just silly when it also does other stuff.
      Naming the server "Hezbollah" and having a bunch of cnames point to it ensures you can easily move a service at any later time without having to rename the server.

    2. Re:Wines, cheeses, trees by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, if I told you 'mx2' and 'nas1' are down, you have a better idea of what you're dealing with... Forget that there's a CNAME from mail to daffy and a CNAME from p0rnserver to nas1.

      Until someone decides to retire mx2, move functionality from nas1 to a new server named nas2, and make use of the old mx2 as the mail server.

      Now you have nas1 and nas2. One's a mail server. You get to guess which one. But hey if you think you REALLY know better than the RFC, it's your network to run.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  2. Rebel by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Naming our machines in odd and amusing ways it our way of secretly rebelling against over management.

  3. Logical names fail eventually by rossz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Over time, systems get refactored for uses that they were not originally intended, so that box named web1 is now an ftp server and nobody bothered to rename it. The same happens when you try to name them by physical location. r1a2r10n5 got moved from Room 1, Aisle 2, Rack 10, Number 5 to another room entirely.

    The easiest time I had dealig with servers was when they were named after japanese monsters. We had Godzilla, Mothra, etc. We all know that Godzilla was the PostresSQL server. If a box's purpose changed, we didn't have to worry about renaming it and people would eventually learn its new purpose.

    Whimsical names work.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  4. Re:Slashdot by mrbooze · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've mostly found it a sign of a company's size/age/maturity as to how boring the server names are. Several places I've worked for started out with the admins coming up with their funny/cute/dorky naming schemes, only to eventually have server names be locked down in the name of STANDARDIZATION.

    Then you have endless meetings to decide what should be the important components of a system name. Should it indicate the machine's location? It's OS? It's function? Should it even indicate which rack number and elevation slot the system is in? Eventually you end up with racks full of servers named SJC-LX-APPDEV01, NYC-SV-EXCHG02, and LDN-UX-SMTPDR01.

    I have to admit, a little part of me misses having room for a little creativity in naming systems, but then the rest of me doesn't miss wasting time trying to come up with names for work systems. I've always got my home network to label with my ever-changing nerdly obsessions.

  5. Re:Slashdot by jaxtherat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It does not bloody well make administration easier! If you have say X servers scattered over Y locations, it makes sense to call them:

    (site)(os)(function)(number)

    i.e.

    sydwindb002

    meaning sydney windows database 002

    as opposed to tauron or frickin picon, or smurf (I'm not kidding you). Best of all though I've seen was server. Just server.

    Serving what?? This was in a rack of 27 severs in total.

    As a sysad, it shits me when people come up with 'cute' nonsensical names that have no consistency and aren't self explanatory. I mean, good software engineering principles dictate that you use meaningful variable names. Why not server names as well?

    --
    http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
  6. Re:Why... by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although it may be healthy to project personalities onto things (I'm a little skeptical, though I could maybe be persuaded by somebody who doesn't go around making sweeping psychiatric diagnoses of people he's never met) that hardly justifies encoding those projections into names.

    There's a simple, practical reason for using names: IP addresses can be hard to remember.
    There's a simple, practical reason for using "themed" name spaces: coming up with dozens/hundreds of names can be hard.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.