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

service tag

[smash]

There is very little you can store in a workstation name that will be static and useful once you go beyond about 10 machines (maybe even less than that).

People move, machines get re-allocated, rebuilt, etc.

I use the service tag. Why? Several reasons:

• its already printed on the machine
• you can get it out of the bios when imaging the PC
• its one less thing to ask the user for if you need to do a warranty claim
• it will never change
• if will be unique, presuming you are a single supplier organisation

Stuff like "bob-pc" or "accounts1" does not scale and either becomes inconsistent, or you need to keep renaming PCs which presents other issues (fucks up any configuration databases you have, etc).

So, service tag - boring as fuck, but does the job.