[diftraku]

A long-time personal favourite naming scheme of mine has been Pokemons (and by extension, Digimons).

There's a good selection, it's pretty varied and there's no shortage of em (assuming you don't exceed 100-200 new systems in a 3 year period). This also has an accidental side-benefit of not being tasked to name new hosts at work, unless your really want to call the new database server Stufful, for example.

Another thing to keep in mind with more descriptive hostnames like `database`, is to serialize them from the start. It's a very minor thing but after you have three hosts with one of them missing the serialization, it's going to stand out like a sore thumb and it could be a major undertaking on changing that name where it's used.

When it comes to project names, there is a certain level of permanence that name (or codename) is going to have. Once chosen, that name will be thrown around in the codebase almost universally. The same does apply to the hostnames, at least in part when it comes to configuration files (and by extension, certain hard-coded hostnames that could linger around in the code years after the host in question has been decommissioned).

[MauranKilom]

> When it comes to project names, there is a certain level of permanence that name (or codename) is going to have. Once chosen, that name will be thrown around in the codebase almost universally. The same does apply to the hostnames, at least in part when it comes to configuration files (and by extension, certain hard-coded hostnames that could linger around in the code years after the host in question has been decommissioned).

Or, as told by xkcd: https://xkcd.com/910/