Slashdot Mirror
Suitable Naming Conventions For Workstations?
spectre_240sx writes "We've discussed server naming a fair amount in the past, but I haven't seen much about workstations. Where I currently work, we embed a lot of information in our workstation names: site, warranty end date, machine type, etc. I'm of the opinion that this is too much information to overload in the machine name when it can more suitably be stored in the computer description. I'd love to hear how others are naming their workstations and some pros and cons for different naming schemes. Should computers be logically tied to the person that they're currently assigned to, or does that just cause unnecessary work when a machine changes hands? Do the management tools in use make a difference in how workstations are named?"
Asset tags systems work well for this. It's what we use. Easy for RA requests too..just ask the user to read their asset tag number (if you don't have it memorized because it's the 5,689th time this dumbfuck has called you asking how to move a file from one folder to another.) and you can punch it in and connect.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Put it in a spreadsheet? Seriously? People still do that? There are plenty of good inventory/audit software solutions out there that are open source. I never want to touch a spreadsheet to keep track workstations again.
Naming conventions on workstations can be quite helpful though, so I don't think it's a non-issue. I've got in the habit of prefixing the name with a 'D' or 'L' based on if the computer is a laptop or desktop. It makes it really obvious what type of computer I'm dealing with.
Also, there's a great utility called wsname (http://mystuff.clarke.co.nz/MyStuff/Default.asp) to help automate computer naming during/after the imaging process to streamline the naming convention.
Just for reference: RFC 1178
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1178.html
While it is not a direct answer to your question, it does give a lot of good why and why not's on this subject. Just as handy now as in the 90s.
Place I worked at previously had an even much simpler method: the hostname is the cubicle number followed by the image build number.
It made a lot of physical services such as repairs and upgrades much faster and really, there is just too much information about a user and machine to even consider using the hostname to store it all.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
My old university/job used a three letter department code, and then the last six digits of the asset tag. You'd get systems like ITS-26301 and MTH-31415.
This is pretty solid, especially because:
Your mileage may vary.
I've found that if it isn't automatic it gets forgotten.
Three years later you'll have WRKSTN_ROOM423 in room 132 and the admin or user that moved it will have either forgot completely or moved on.
Workstations should not need to be accessed over the network so they should not need a friendly name.
There is no reason why the tag number which is clearly printed on the machine should not be used.
Plenty of name generators on the web, such as http://www.seventhsanctum.com/. I quite like the dwarf names such as Bloodbreaker, Demonbreaker, Doomsmelter, Foesmiter, Greatmail, Honorpick, Irondig, Ironsmasher, Lightpacer, Stonebullion. One serious advantage of generated names is that they are pronouncable, making help desk support easier. Unlike some alphanumeric codes - I still remember the confusions when IBM had two RS/6000 family members, the 380 and the 3AT.
Andrew Yeomans