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?"

Comments

Worst ask slashdot ever

[Brian Gordon]

And that's saying something.

Honestly, can you even think of a stupider question? How is this even an issue? Just name each machine with an ID and put the information in a spreadsheet somewhere. It's not a complicated problem.

Re:Worst ask slashdot ever

[zoomshorts]

Simply name it after the the DATA DROP ID. You can locate the machine
and when you change PC's, just change THAT machine name to correspond
with the drop location.

Yeah, put it in a 'spreadsheet'. Most 'spreadsheets' are merely
searchable lists... go figure, I guess people forget what a
spreadsheet IS.

Re:Worst ask slashdot ever

[smash]

Problem with that is that you will continually either have out of date PC names that are named according to where they AREN'T - or you need to continually rename PCs, thus completely ass-raping any configuration database you have (issue tracking, asset tracking, software licensing, virus scanner history, etc).

Renaming PCs = BAD. You get away with it up to a certain size, but once you start implementing apps like a job tracking system, software licensing tracking, etc it just bites you in the arse... HARD.

Re:Worst ask slashdot ever

[smash]

It might not seem complicated, but there are a number of traps for new players. Most of these traps involve trying to store location/user/OS information in the hostname - which seems like a good idea at the time, but just gives you false information down the track when people quit, machines move, or the OS gets upgraded.

If you rename the PCs you're forever trying to keep up - or dealing with false information, which is worse than no information...

Re:Worst ask slashdot ever

[DarkProphet]

Why even do that? Just give it an incremental ID and make it the primary key a database of whatever it is you want to know about the machine -- eg: location, serial number, IP address (if you use static addressing), whatever else. You shouldn't ever change the unique ID you give a machine. That's bad. IMHO its always better to avoid putting metadata in a unique identifier altogether. It does involve an extra step for the netadmin to get information about the machine, but the bonus is he can find out whatever he wants. Work smarter, not harder :-)

A computer name is not a database

[rminsk]

A computer name should not be a database. If you want to store information such as site, warranty end date, machine type, ... use a database.

Re:Easy...

[Brian Gordon]

I laughed out loud. Using the IP address as the hostname? Genius.

Re:Like an ID for a database record

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We have an 'asset tag' - a number written on the case with a sharpie. (Works perfectly fine for us!) The computer's name is just "PC" followed by the (zero padded to three digits) computer number. Thus, I'm on PC079.

(With us, when a person changes department or office, their computer follows them. Thus there's no sane reason for us to encode the office or department name into the computer's name.)

Changing hands shouldn't be a problem

[barzok]

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?

The machine should be reimaged when it changes hands, so resetting the name will add about 5 seconds to the setup process. Not a big deal.

Re:Changing hands shouldn't be a problem

[smash]

Except when you rename the PC you've destroyed any connection between the physical asset and any configuration database you have, such as a support history, purchasing, virus scanner database history, etc. Also, youv'e left an AD computer account that is no longer active in your directory that will need to be cleaned up (is the inactive computer account for that PC in storage, or has it been rebuilt??), and made it harder to keep track of volume licenses, etc.

Whatever naming scheme you choose, ensure that you can leave the names alone once they're assigned. Renaming PCs is bad and creates additional workload for no good reason.

Re:don't name by person just makes it harder to do

[ls671]

In the tightest companies I have worked for, they name workstations and servers with meaningless random generated alphanumeric sequences.

I guess they consider it more secure, making it harder to figure out the network topology. Also, since the names are meaningless, there is never a need to rename the machine really, unless they would want to confuse even more want to be hackers.

Re:don't name by person just makes it harder to do

[crossmr]

That's a lot of work when someone changes a cubicle.

What's hard about "hostname"?

[argent]

because if you're going to rename a server, you might as well rebuild it

What, "hostname $new_name" is too hard to type? I mean, you don't hardcode the machine name in application config files and rc scripts, do you?

Do you?