dan takes a poll: server names

[Matthew Gamble]

<snip>

>
>Altough I agree that server naming becomes annoying past a certain point I
>(and a certain RFC) recommend against naming boxes after functions.
>Functions tend to change faster than hostnames do and it is not unknown
>for the two get out of sync.
>
>I find admins who work with the boxes day in and day out tend to remember
>the particular services they offer all too well :)
>
>
>  
>
I agree with you about the issues that arise when a machine changes 
function, however, I find that if I am changing the function of a 
machine, odds are I am re-installing the OS anyways, so a name change 
isn't really an issue.  I'm not going to install the same software and 
services on a mail server that I would on a radius server.

I'd love to have 'fun' names for my servers, however, in an ISP 
environment where there are 30+ machines, each serving a different 
function, with a team of people building them and maintaining them, I'll 
take my functional hostname over a fictional one any day of the week.

And for everyones reference, the RFC for the naming of hosts is 
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2100.html

M. Gamble
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml