Comments on: Linked Server Naming

By: SQLBatman

SQLBatman — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:39:04 +0000

In reply to Scott C. thanks scott, that setup would seem to work very well

By: Scott C

Scott C — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:30:55 +0000

We have three main SQL Servers, call them A B and C. Each has linked servers defined for the other two, using the server name. So server A has link B pointing to server B, link C pointing to server C, etc.

Our test environment has three servers with a T prefix (or as substitute for a production P). The linked servers have the same name as the production links, but point to the test servers. So server TA has link B pointing to TB, link C pointing to TC, etc.

This way code can be moved between environments without editing.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:50:53 +0000

We also kept a database of global environment variables. One of the pieces was the name of the linked server.
Not saying it’s right or wrong, just something else I’ve encountered.

By: Jason Cumberland

Jason Cumberland — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:49:57 +0000

We used the convention for linked servers for the very same environment reasons.

By: Brandon Reno

Brandon Reno — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:56:19 +0000

We went through both of the standards that you mentioned, before settling on a compromise. Since our envioronments were completely mirrored, and the only difference between the dev SQL servers and the Production SQL Servers was a D or P.

We ended up with a convention where the linked servers are the full server name with an X in place of the environment character.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:51:39 +0000

Thanks for the conversation! I realized it was easier to blog about my experience than try to include it in the comments here.

http://wendyverse.blogspot.com/2009/05/linked-server-naming.html