User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Fishy business

Fishy business

Posted Mar 6, 2010 18:11 UTC (Sat) by jeremiah (subscriber, #1221)
In reply to: Fishy business by bronson
Parent article: Fishy business

Admittedly my internal product names are contrived, but as coders and what not, we are exports
at the TLA. So in daily use it would probably reduce to sls, and sle with some versioning tagged
on to the end. And as for say this to marketing, they can have there own external name, they
don't really need to know the internal one do they, since there going to be changing it all the
time anyway?

As for the servers, I've figured out where you and i differ. One of the things I do when wearing
my sysadmin hat as opposed to my developer hat, is PCI-DSS compliance for a payment
gateway. If you haven't done it, just know that it tedious to an extreme, but over all a good thing.
One of the things that it bring to the table, is that every service lives on a different server, to
minimize exposer from external threats. This is why we had an explosion in the number of
servers, but has enabled us to have a 1 to 1 service to server name based infrastructure.
Obviously no one is going to throw real hardware at a lot of these services, so most are handled
with virtualization. But each of those servers is named for its function as well which HBS-1 or
whatever. Combined with the Fibre channel LUN that one service/server or another is stored on.
Needless to say, we have a lot of infrastructure to manage, and it's all pool based. So the need
and the ability to name things according to service makes all of this manageable. Right now, I
manage 120+ servers, so it's all about manageability.

I guess it's an apples to oranges kinda thing, in that I would not run the mail server, file server,
and other things on the same box, but that's a luxury I have and other may not.


(Log in to post comments)

Fishy business

Posted Mar 8, 2010 15:58 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

Speaking as an author of published research on this topic, Jeremiah (RFC 2100, to be precise), let me tell you that assigning to a machine a role based name is pretty much the Worst Imaginable Idea; any number of system administration textbooks (including the Purple Book and TPOSANA) can explain to you why in more detail than I have the time for right now.

You're perfectly welcome -- and in fact, encouraged -- to assign *DNS aliases* to them that are function/role based, but don't name the *machines* that.

Really.

Your replacement will thank you. ;-)

Fishy business

Posted Mar 8, 2010 18:28 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

In a past job, I had the great pleasure of sending the sysadmins a copy of
RFC2100 with the addition 'Learn, guys', when they decided, overnight, to
rename all our development systems from names like neptune and tabernacle
to nice memorable names like, if I can reconstruct one of
them, 'cddldsbgcorplr42-1' which encoded not just that this was a
development machine but the current name of the company and division and
the machine's *rack number* and location on its rack, with the declared
intention of changing this name whenever the company or division changed
names or the machine was reracked. (This was an improvement over their
previous edict, which was that all machines should be named after their IP
address. Even those getting their addresses from DHCP.)

(despite that name: this machine was not in Utah. 'lds' meant 'London
development centre' or something like that. Centre starts with an 's',
donchaknow.)

I found out later that said sysadmins didn't know what CNAMEs were. So
thanks for writing RFC2100: it started the painful process of imparting
Clue in this case, specifically that a machine can have many names.


Copyright © 2018, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds