23 Oct
2002
23 Oct
'02
3:14 a.m.
At 10:32 AM 22/10/2002 -0500, Jay West wrote:
I personally don't name machines by "what they
are", for very good reason.
Plus, no one but the admin group uses the "real" machine names, also for
very good reason. Here's some illustrative examples...
If you call an HP K370 "k370.somedomain.com", and then upgrade it to a K570
by just adding a few more cpu cards, do you really want to still call it
K370.somedomain.com? If not, you have to retrain your user community and
this is a pain, and kinda defeats the whole idea of using meaningful names
so people don't need to know IP addresses. As a result, machine names
generally indicate what they are used for... so a machine that processes
orders might be "orders.somedomain.com". However, this can cause issues
unless the second point below is heeded...
I think there's a big difference between what you call systems at home and
what you do in your job. At home I don't see a problem with calling a system
whatever you like and as I said before, I tend to refer to systems by their
function. If I was still naming systems for work (and by inference for lots of
other people) it'd be different. No fancy names that only you can remember the
spelling of either - it took me a long time to work out why one of the systems
at work was called IJFW01 - let's see how long it takes someone to work
that one
out....
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
| "If God had wanted soccer played in the
| air, the sky would be painted green"