11–20 of 128 posts
I was expecting this to be a April Fools RFC [0]. I was disappointed when I checked the date. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for...
(IP via pigeons).
Use anime character names. That way you have an excuse to collect cute artwork for these machines.
Made for great mascot toys and posters on the rack doors.
It probably needs updating. It's been a while since the last large leak.
> Certain sets are finite, such as the seven dwarfs. When you order your first seven computers, keep in mind that you will probably get more next year. We ran into this years ago when we named our machines after the Marx Brothers. We started out with Harpo, Groucho and Zeppo. When two more arrived, we used Chico and Gummo. IIRC we added Karl, Deutsche, Skid, Birth and Spencer before giving in and adopting a proper 'c…
It is:
...
Of course, they could have called the second one "shop2" and so on. But then one is really only distinguishing machines by their number. You might as well just call them "1", "2", and "3". The only time this kind of naming scheme is appropriate is when you have a lot of machines and there are no reasons for any human to distinguish between them. For example, a master computer might be controlling an array of one hundred computers. In this case, it makes sense to refer to them with the array indices.
You will read this RFC like this:
$ ietf -n 1178
I was expecting this to be a April Fools RFC [0]. I was disappointed when I checked the date. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for...
Also "IP over avian carriers" ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 ) (IP via pigeons).
The IP datagram is printed, on a small scroll of paper, in
hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff.
The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges. The
bandwidth is limited to the leg length. The MTU is variable, and
paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age. A
typical MTU is 256 milligrams. Some datagram padding may be needed.
Upon receipt, the duct tape is removed and the paper copy of the
datagram is optically scanned into a electronically transmittable
form.This kind of naming is fine for small projects, and personal setups. In professional settings I would suggest using descriptive names and rely more on DNS. It's not that I don't enjoy fun and personal naming schemes, it's just that it's a constant annoyance when dealing with a large number of different systems. We've been hired to deal with different companies, who picks some random naming, cars, athletes, plants, ci…
Have individual hw named in unique way that isn't related to functionality it runs, then use CNAMEs specific to functionality - i.e. never point a DNS client at "freddy.dc.somecorp.com", you point it at "dns01.dc.somecorp.com".
The decision on what machines need unique names, not just pseudorandom IDs or similar crap, is well described by another comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26054487 - which I like to put as "named systems are the systems you care about"
In fact, I'll go with seemingly unpopular opinion that there are only pets, never cattle. The pets just happen to have components, but at some level of the stack you're hitting a precious pet. Even if said pet is "us-east-1 Lambda service"
This kind of naming is fine for small projects, and personal setups. In professional settings I would suggest using descriptive names and rely more on DNS. It's not that I don't enjoy fun and personal naming schemes, it's just that it's a constant annoyance when dealing with a large number of different systems. We've been hired to deal with different companies, who picks some random naming, cars, athletes, plants, ci…
Functional names for servers are IMHO one of the worst possible options, because functions drift over time. Have individual hw named in unique way that isn't related to functionality it runs, then use CNAMEs specific to functionality - i.e. never point a DNS client at "freddy.dc.somecorp.com", you point it at "dns01.dc.somecorp.com". The decision on what machines need unique names, not just pseudorandom IDs or simila…
Where I see this most often is with companies that place a unusual high cost on servers, virtual machines or containers. In those cases I normally just application servers, that's a good a description as any. The only difference is that I won't thing twice about deleting a server called app01 and recreate it using Ansible, Puppet, docker-compose or whatever deployment tool that customer uses.
In my mind there aren't "pets" any more, and if there is that's a mistake that needs to be corrected. The customers I deal with who have pet servers are the most dysfunctional and the ones with the most challenges, both technically and organisational.
Naming can make sense, our old cluster was named after orchestra parts. When you logged In you where placed on the lobby. The machines where clustered (violin01, violin02, tuba01) and grouped by function types (percussion were the web servers)
New cluster it’s login01,login02 , the work cluster names I don’t remember...