System Naming Schema

[Frazer, Cody R]

Adam,

I've always used this sort of thing too.
The only difference is that I've used them
only in smaller networks. Here's a list of
pros and cons as I see them:

PROS:
- No naming overlap
We won't have to worry about versions or generations. Puppet
and other systems won't get confused.

- Mythical names are awesome
Let's face it, Thor is much cooler than db01. ;)

CONS:
- Schema isn't transparent
This makes it harder for new/outside people to understand.
We may even have to have notes or documentations so we remember
what each server does (or was). The version and role of a server
will be harder to track.

- Names are limited
If we run out of names (and we eventually will) we'll be back to
where we started.

I'm probably just speaking a bunch of rubbish (as I'm not
all that familiar with the environment), but that's just
my first impression. Feel free to tell me to shut up. ;)

-----

I would propose that we do something like this:

db[generation]x[number]
(ex. db0x1)

	or

db[generation]0[number]
(ex. db101)

This way, we can keep track of *roles(by number),
function(by name, e.g. "db"), and version(by generation).

*Roles meaning: db1x1 => primary database server
               db1x2 => secondary db server (or transition server)

Cody


On 4/28/11 2:50 PM, "Adam M. Dutko" <dutko.adam at gmail.com> wrote:

>The following disscussion about how to name machines popped up in the
>meeting today:
>
>15:42 < nirik> basically the issue is this... we have a db01 machine in
>puppet,
>               we want to replace it with another new shiny instance.
>15:42 < nirik> if we also call it db01, then there is a time where we
>have to
>               cut over and the old machine gets no more updates, etc.
>15:43 < nirik> and there may be puppet changes to make the new db01 happy
>that
>               would have to be reverted if we went back to the old one.
>
>
>I am attempting to continue it on the mailing list. Instead of using
>functional names like db01, db02, web01 and etc. I've always used
>mythological names like heracles, odin, thor, and etc. It makes it a
>bit difficult to determine the functionality of a system but it makes
>it a lot easier to perform upgrades and changes like Nirik mentioned.
>If desired we could then use DNS in the form of CNAME records to
>create "functional aliases" like db01 and etc. that wouldn't affect
>our core utilities like puppet.
>
>Just a thought. Feedback?
>_______________________________________________
>infrastructure mailing list
>infrastructure at lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure