Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
Use of standardised names when the location and function is fixed and directly linked to what that machine is for so a switch in Dundee may be called dundee1 but where a server could move location or function it is "better" to give the server a silly name and alias function/location.
Some companies don't like humour and/or have such huge estates that they really rely on formal naming systems, especially if there is any automation that may "construct" names to perform tasks but again an alias would solve the latter issue.
The OP though has a small estate so more "friendly" names could be easier than a standardised scheme.
|
Well yes there is no fixed method, it is what works best for each company. The less devices and fewer people managing/creating said devices the less important naming structure is, as these increase the benefits of a standardised naming structuire also increase.
We have centralised datacentres so don't have an issue with servers moving location plus servers don't change function if a server is no longer required it will be archived off (the benefits of being virtualised).
Yes you can assign an alias, but if you looking in logs etc you will see the "silly" name and then have to do a lookup to find out information about that server unless you have knowledge of what that name correlates to.