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.
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)
My SSID’s are still listed as Testnet and Testnet5 after years. Had to test something at one point, it worked and never cared to go back and update things. 🤷♂️
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*.
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.
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.
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
So?
Don’t act like the internet isn’t built on RFCs that old
Windows backwards compatibility can’t handle more than 15 characters in a name.
Harry1
Harry2
Harry3
RFC1123 supports 63 chars, but even that gets problematic when you have things like $cluster-$datacenter-$node-additional-seed-service in k8s.
Pros use computer names like
Server
newerserver
newnewerserver
latestserver
Newlatestserver
My home lab took that personally, how dare
My SSID’s are still listed as Testnet and Testnet5 after years. Had to test something at one point, it worked and never cared to go back and update things. 🤷♂️
fixed it for you :) acronyms with full words in the middle of them are not acronyms
You are correct, however 5 is actually short for 5725 …
I once worked in a company that named theirs servers
server1,server2,server3, etc.That atleast makes them (hopefully) chronological and easy to refer to.
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.
server2was an old Dell tower computer running Windows 2000 on the bare metal andserver1was manually installed Debian with kernel 2.6.*something*.but easy to mix up
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.
Every place I’ve ever worked has had a bobafet.