Re: Server naming conventions

["Michael J. Wheeler" <mwheeler () PITTSTATE EDU>]

We have very few physical servers left here. But, they are still named for
their function. SQL1 is a SQL server; mail is the mail server; esx1, esx2,
and esx3 are VMware servers.

All VMs are named for their function. dc1 and dc2 are domain controllers,
ds1 and ds2 are directory (ldap) servers. For services that are less
obvious (departmental servers), we put "-svr" at the end. For instance,
University Police and Parking Services is "upps-svr".

VMware makes things easier because there's an "annotations" box in the GUI
attached to each VM. We populate the notes field with information detailing
the VM's purpose, and who to contact if they have questions about that VM.

Years ago, before my time here, we had a server admin that would name
servers after bugs. Maggot, Cockroach, and Stinkbug were 3 Windows servers;
it gave the perception of immaturity to upper administration. The VP's
secretary seemed to cringe whenever she asked me to restore a file for her
boss that was deleted from "Maggot".

--
Michael J. Wheeler
Assistant Director, Systems and Networking
Pittsburg State University
Phone:  620-235-4610
E-mail: mwheeler () pittstate edu

On 2/11/2010 10:15 AM, Steven Tardy wrote:
> a wise man long ago decided to decouple the server purpose from the
> server name.
> physical servers get retasked confusing inventory and tracking and
> management.
>
> physical servers use tree names...
> fig / elm / oak / catalpa / pine / cedar / ...
> then DNS CNAMEs pointing the purpose to the host.
> smtps -=> catalpa
>
> our sister group used to use rocks/mineral. oak is easier to spell than
> tsavorite. (:
> other groups on campus use cartoon characters and movie characters.
>
>
> today with virtual servers, virtual servers are named based on purpose.
> ... a VM wouldn't be retasked. you'd simply create a new VM.
>
> distinct names makes things easier to remember:
> catalpa is part of smtps
> as opposed to:
> srv## is part of smtps
>
> can't remember what this server does?
> we have a file on each server with it's purpose.
> login and cat a file.
>
>
> Daniel Woodruff wrote:
> > What kinds of naming conventions do everyone follow when building new
> > servers?
> >
> >
> >
> > Currently, our Windows hosts are named following the pattern 'its-w2ks#'
> > or similar, where the # is the next in the sequence, and the names are
> > published in DNS. What are the potential drawbacks or using a scheme
> > like this? Do you think it is any better or worse from a security
> > perspective than using something like 'its-oracle-1' which has the
> > service right in the name? We're concerned about disclosing the purpose
> > of the machine via its name, and are trying to get an idea of what other
> > schools do for their machines. Thanks in advance.