Naming conventions for servers, two years later

Arseni Mourzenko
Founder and lead developer
161
articles
November 14, 2017
Tags: rant 33 datacenter 4

A few years ago, I wrote an ar­ti­cle ex­plain­ing how do I name servers. Since then, lit­tle changed, and con­ven­tions used in com­pa­nies are still in­sane. Men­tal­i­ty hasn't changed ei­ther, and it's still con­sid­ered pro­fes­sion­al to have ar­bi­trary, mean­ing­less names no­body could re­mem­ber.

The ben­e­fits of ex­plic­it, mean­ing­ful host names are, how­ev­er, high:

There are, how­ev­er, a few lim­i­ta­tions as well.

To con­clude, if you have an in­fra­struc­ture man­aged by a small team where every­one is re­spon­si­ble enough to care about read­able serv­er names, and if you use Unix-based ma­chines only, there are few rea­sons not to use this nam­ing pat­tern. It makes your life eas­i­er, and makes it un­nec­es­sar­i­ly to have a ded­i­cat­ed map­ping sys­tem be­tween hu­man­ly read­able in­for­ma­tion and cryp­tic iden­ti­fiers which are used by mis­take as ma­chine names. If you do use Win­dows, then the schema is un­for­tu­nate­ly not for you; but, well, if you do use Win­dows, you have oth­er, more cru­cial prob­lems to solve, right?