Server naming convention
i've seen dozens of naming conventions, , of them made sense -- somebody. don't think i've ever seen attempt come universal standard, though. if naming convention satisfies needs, it's one.
personally, rule must identifiable, comprehensible, , typeable. don't want meaningless characters. example, "exchangeserver2016" opposed what? "exchangedesktop2003"? why word "server" there? if it's because want servers visually distinguishable desktops in dns lists, acceptable response. if it's because don't care few letters, that's acceptable response. why version number there? same deal. whatever works you. remember if have computer name greater 15 characters long, you'll regret it.
my personal convention <type identifier><purpose identifier><numerical identifier>. types, have "dt" desktop, "lt" laptop, "sv" server, "rt" router, "sw" switch, , "pt" printer. type identifiers 2 characters unpronounceable in sequence because of lessons learned hard way. purpose identifiers enough point across, "exch" , "sql", no more necessary. numbers start @ 1 , count up. see lot of people using 3 digits (ex: "001") in sites never have more handful of servers, makes no sense me. but, trick picked else alternate numerical identifier across versions in way allows me "keep" name. example, first 2012 r2 hyper-v server "svhv1". hyper-v server 2016 system replace "svhv01". 2012 r2 system gone whenever next version of hyper-v server released, i'll go "svhv1". way, know version without entering version number. not maintainable system @ volume because mixed versions common, version identification isn't 1 of requirements.
i've seen systems every character position has precise meaning. works, need lookup table determine system is. i've seen people use popular culture names had no bearing on anything. really, whatever system works you.
eric siron
altaro hyper-v blog
independent contributor, not altaro employee. accept responsibility content of posts. accept responsibility actions take based on content of posts.
Windows Server > Hyper-V
Comments
Post a Comment