<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">As much as I want to name my servers something unique and cool, I tend to stick with what David is saying.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Typically, I prefer using the airport code of the city the server is in + function specifier (i.e., A = Application, W = Web, M = Mail, etc) + number.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I know, the majority of you are probably cringing with such a "corporate" naming convention. But ultimately, naming conventions should be a</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">documented best practices within your organization. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Now naming my personal servers at home is another story. Since I only have a handful, this allows me artistic space to be creative with names.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Just my .02</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Smith, Craig A (MN14) writes:<br>
> At the north end of last Friday's beer meeting, there was a<br>
> discussion about server naming conventions. I opined the names of 7<br>
> dwarfs works only until you get an 8th server.<br>
> [...]<br>
<br>
I'm curious as to why you'd need to arbitrarily make up a bunch of server<br>
names. I've always named servers after their function. That practice has<br>
been used everywhere I've worked. When you have names like www, ns, backup,<br>
db, mail, etc., followed by numbers, it is obvious what each box does.<br>
<br>
It keeps you from saying ``fox is down again'', with people left asking ``is<br>
that the mail server or the database server?''. Now, if you're starting a<br>
project and need a codename for it, you might pick a short name like<br>
``ant'', and thus name the server that, but that's different than everyday<br>
production servers. People would still know what the server was if they<br>
knew about the project.<br>
<br>
--<br>
David Phillips <david@acz.org><br>
http://david.acz.org/</font>
<br>