It seems to me that the more sane approach is to give all the machines descriptive names, such as "Dataserver", "webserver1", and "webserver2". As it is, all past references to the database server were named "pliny". Now pliny is going to be a webserver - this is confusing. It would be much less confusing IMO if we had stated "database server" all along and just noted upgrades as an aside when they happen. However, if total logic is ruled out, then please stabilize on some names and give each of those names specific tasks. For example the new name Diderot (or whatever is chosen) will always be the name of the fastest, most powerful database server (no matter what specific hardware it has). The name Pliny will always be used for webserver 1 and the nameLarousse will always be used for webserver 2 (both irrespective of what hardware they have). Adding more machines to the mix will add more names, but those names should be given as-yet-unfilled tasks such as database server 2, and webserver 3, 4, 5... So when we buy our next even more monstrous database server that would become the new Diderot and the current machine with that name would be assigned the new task of database server 2 (in which case a new name would be needed for it). That way the name "Diderot" would always refer to the primary database server. -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree