Now that I'm aware we have the policy or non changing names and not
reusing them, I believe is good we invest the required time in
discussing the schemes and make proper choice / changes.
== On dashes in puppet ==
I agree that s/-/_/ is something to avoid, totally. But if p4 supports
that, we could take advantage of it, unless someone expects our puppet
code to run in p<4
After a quick search in google, I think the limitation was a thing in
old puppet versions. No idea if this is actually true.
Could anyone confirm if this limitation applies in current times?
== On naming ==
A name like "codfw2rbdev" or "codfwi2rb" is simply non-pronounceable
for me. I could end summoning Sauron ... :-) The language is that of
Mordor, which I will not utter here..
Going back to your scheme:
-> [site][numeric][r postfix for region] (region)
--> [site][numeric][region][letter postfix for row] (availability
zone -- indicator for us that will last a long time I expect)
Perhaps we could reduce the amount of keywords. For example, site and
region could be redundant, since a site implies a region.
codfw <-> na-center
eqiad <-> na-east
ulsfo <-> na-west
esams <-> eu-center
This is your meaning of region, right?
Also, it seems that all components are "variables" and there are no
common keyword for referring to them. What about using 'cloudvps'? (or
Using all of the above, then the idea is:
cloudvps-eqiad1 <-- prod deployment in eqiad number 1
cloudvps-eqiad1b <-- prod deployment in eqiad number 1 row b
cloudvps-eqiad1c <-- prod deployment in eqiad number 1 row c
(region is implied na-east)
cloudvps-dev-codfw2 <--devel deployment in codfw number 2
cloudvps-dev-codfw2b <--devel deployment in codfw number 2 row b
cloudvps-dev-codfw2c <--devel deployment in codfw number 2 row c
(region is implied na-center)
Again, I will push for using a complete keyword 'dev' or something
similar, rather than a letter.
I agree with Bryan, what we are looking for is domains and subdomains.
Using domains and subdomains could solve most of our problems with
Are we reinventing the wheel with all these naming schemes?
Perhaps we could simply invest our effort in addressing blockers for