Communications of the ACM

Kode Vicious

The Naming of Hosts Is a Difficult Matter

By George V. Neville-Neil
Communications of the ACM, October 2013, Vol. 56 No. 10, Pages 33-34
10.1145/2505339
Comments

  Dear KV

An argument recently broke out between two factions of our systems administration team concerning the naming of our next set of hosts. One faction wants to name machines after services, with each host having a numeric suffix, and the other wants to continue our current scheme of each host having a unique name, without a numeric string. We now have so many hosts that any unique name is getting quite long—and is annoying to type. A compromise was recently suggested whereby each host could have two names in our internal DNS (Domain Name System), but this seems overly complicated. How do you decide on a host-naming scheme?

Anonymous

Back to Top

Dear Anonymous

I refer you to T.S. Eliot, who pointed out—sort of:

The Naming of Hosts is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a host must have
THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.

"The Naming of Cats" (not hosts) is a poem in T.S. Eliot's poetry book, Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, and its stage adaptation is Andrew Lloyd Webber's popular musical, Cats. The poem describes to humans how cats get their names. I took some liberties with Eliot's wording—as others have done before me—and extended the analogy to describe the naming of hosts. But given that T.S. Eliot died just about the time the first minicomputers were being designed, I do not think he had host names in mind when he wrote his poem. And that is a good thing, because if you think two names are bad, three would only be worse!

---

Giving something a name has a simple purpose: to make it understandable to a community of people.

---

The naming of hosts is a difficult matter that ranks with coding style, editor choice, and language preference in the pantheon of things computer people fight about that do not matter to anyone else in the whole world. What is even more annoying—or amusing—but actually annoying, is that if you are in the wrong bar at the wrong time, you will hear systems administrators fighting about naming schemes and crying in their drinks over the names they lovingly gave to hosts at their previous companies.

Giving something a name has a simple purpose: to make it understandable and memorable to a community of people. Naming your variables foo, bar, and baz is amusing in a short example program, but you would not want to maintain 100 lines of code written like that. The same is true of host names. Hosts have names because people need to know how to get to them—either to use their services or to maintain them, or both. If people were not involved, hosts could simply be identified by their Internet addresses. Unfortunately, host naming is an instance where geeks like to get creative. Even more unfortunately, geeks do not always know the difference between creative and annoying. It is all very well to decide your hosts should be named after Star Trek, Star Wars, or Tolkien or Twilight characters. With Tolkien you can probably write—and someone has probably already done so—a script to generate new names based on his works, just in case The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Silmarillion did not have enough ridiculous names in them to begin with!

Everyone has a naming horror story. My first was at a university where the hosts were named after rivers. That would have been fine if you could remember how to spell "Seine," but once you run out of nice short names, you get to "Mississippi" and "Dnjeper." That is what I want to do when I remotely log in to a host, I want to think in my head, "M-I crooked letter crooked letter I crooked letter crooked letter I hump back hump back I," which is how I and many other American schoolchildren learned to spell Mississippi. I could go on and on about this, but then I would sound like those systems administrators I mentioned who were lamenting past host names. Here, therefore, is a short guide to picking host names.

A name you are going to use on a daily basis must be easy to type. That means no silent letters, such as in Dnjeper, and nothing that is too long, like thisisthehostthatjackbuilt.

It is a good idea to choose names that everyone you work with can pronounce. With globalization, finding pronounceable names has become more difficult, since some people cannot pick up L vs. R, or understand whether you just used a double o or a single o, and diphthongs will kill you (no, diphthongs are not a new Brazilian bathing suit). The main point here is to avoid picking a name with a lot of sounds that are difficult to translate into typing. Typing is still faster than using a voice-recognition system; so remember, these names will have to be typed.

If you are going to use services as names, make sure you can replace the systems behind the names without hiccups. It should be obvious that everyone is going to be annoyed if they have to use mail2.yourdomain.com when mail.yourdomain.com goes down. (This point is not really about naming, because any systems administrator worth his or her paycheck can build a system like this; but I have seen it done the wrong way, so I wanted to state it for the record.)

Avoid at all costs having two different, unrelated names for the same thing. In fact, this is true in code and host names. If you have two similar services and you want two different names, make it completely obvious how to map one name to the other and back. It is maddening to have the kind of back and forth where one person asks,

"Hey, can I reboot fibble?"

"Yes."

And then someone asks,

"Who rebooted mail1?"

"But I didn't know it was mail1; I thought it was fibble."

Finally, try to avoid being cute. I know that giving this piece of advice is basically tilting at windmills, but I have to say that people who name their mail servers male and female make my normally icy blood boil.

KV

Back to Top

Dear KV,

One of my company's frontline engineers—in the group that looks at the live traffic hitting our switches and servers—keeps reporting problems, and then, before anyone can look at the server that is having issues, reboots the system to clear the problem. How do you explain to someone there is information that needs to be collected when the system is misbehaving that is absolutely vital to finding and solving the problem?

Booted

Back to Top

Dear Booted

I would start by standing with my foot on this person's chest and yelling, "There is information that needs to be collected when the system is misbehaving that is absolutely vital to finding and solving the problem." But I take it you have tried that already, though perhaps without enough screaming.

True, systems tend to build up state during execution that is not written to some permanent storage often enough. The problem you need to solve is not preventing the person from insta-booting a misbehaving machine, as much as it is to make sure there is a good, searchable record of what the system is doing when it is running. Most system-monitoring tools on modern servers generate plain text output. It is a simple matter to write scripts that execute periodically to write the output of these tools—such as procstat, netstat, iostat, and the like—into files that will be preserved across reboots.

For more pernicious problems, you can write your own tools, either scripts or new programs that are executed when the system is shut down or rebooted. In this way, if people are insta-booting your machines before you can get to them, you can make it so their reboot command does your bidding. You can even go so far as to rig your operating system to produce a kernel core dump on each reboot. This gives you a snapshot of the system as it was when it was broken, which you can go back to later and pick through. I warn you, though, that picking through a kernel core dump is about as much fun as picking fleas off a dog.

The only downside to collecting all this data is analyzing it. Since it is no longer really necessary to delete data, you may wind up spending a good deal of time organizing it into trees of trees of files. I offer a couple of quick suggestions. Do not make the tree scheme too difficult to traverse, either for a person or a program. It can take a very long time to access a ton of files in deep trees, due to the cost of traversing the directory trees. Keep things simple for both yourself and your analysis programs. Before you start, have a plan for what you want to store, where you want to store it, and how you plan to access it. Most people put this kind of thought into their applications, but not enough into how and where they store logs or other runtime information generated by their systems. You should put at least half as much time into the latter as you do into the former.

KV

Related articles
on queue.acm.org

Kode Vicious Gets Dirty
George Neville-Neil
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1071723

High Performance Web Sites
Steve Souders
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1466450

Erlang for Concurrent Programming
Jim Larson
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1454463

Back to Top

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2013 ACM, Inc.

---

No entries found