• Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also, can somebody explain this to sysadmins when it comes to naming computers?

    I mean programmers can have some weird naming conventions, but I’ve never met an adult professional programmer who named all his variables after planets or Harry Potter characters or just called everything stuff like ADMUTIL6 or PBLAB03T1 or PBPCD1602.

    • flying_wotsit@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Harry Potter characters is a perfectly reasonable server naming scheme. Server names should be easily recognisable but not tied to any particular service/project/function on that machine (as the server may be used for other things later etc)

      See RFC 1178: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1178

      • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        RFC1123 supports 63 chars, but even that gets problematic when you have things like $cluster-$datacenter-$node-additional-seed-service in k8s.

    • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was a thread about that on c/selfhosted a few weeks ago. Created by a particular wild-cat-inspired sysadmin, I might add.

      But on a more serious note, the interactions between a sysadmin and their servers (that they have enough responsibility for to be able to name) are much more intimate than the interactions between a dev and their variables. The server names also exist in a much larger namespace, so they need to be more unique.

    • aname@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Pros use computer names like

      Server
      newerserver
      newnewerserver
      latestserver
      Newlatestserver

          • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately no. The servers were set up when needed for whatever was needed. server2 was the AD, server1 had a business application running, server3 had backup and time tracking … it was a whole mess.

            Edit: the the memories come back. Nothing was virtualized. server2 was an old Dell tower computer running Windows 2000 on the bare metal and server1 was manually installed Debian with kernel 2.6.*something*.