VBA worker instance naming

[b.vanhaastrecht]

Hello,

To comply with companies naming conventions we would like to opt for option to name the components of the worker instances. If the ID in the name should not be necessary as you can use the Azure Resource ID within the VBA database.
VBA-a8bb31a4-a73d-4e31-98b2-6842528f2c9d
VBA-13d9dcc5-a38e-4a4b-bba5-6eb2ec18b838-nic
VBA-a47b65f5-3b61-4d39-a9b3-9d7584e5dedc_disk1_78b8e2b33f554639a7d71c89772bb494
VBA-13d9dcc5-a38e-4a4b-bba5-6eb2ec18b838_disk2_090040726518443e93033055f726cb07

Something like:
Name: vm-somename (then you can add an auto numbering like -01 -02 -03 ext..)

For the NIC you can auto create the name with: <vmname>-01-nic
For the disks: <vmname>-disk1, <vmname>-disk2

So you will end up with:
vm-vbaw-01
vm-vbaw-01-nic
vm-vbaw-01-disk1
vm-vbaw-01-disk2
vm-vbaw-02
vm-vbaw-02-nic
vm-vbaw-02-disk1
vm-vbaw-02-disk2
...

With my best paint skills:


Thanks,
regards,
Bastiaan

[nielsengelen]

Hi Bastiaan,

What about using tags for the workers for now? We already support this via the API (with billing as one of the reasons).

On configuring more static names, we will look into this idea but I won’t be able to provide an ETA.

Keep in mind that something random will always be added so the name you suggest would become a prefix. If you configure for example to keep 3 workers the naming would be something like vmname-number-randomstring.

[b.vanhaastrecht]

Keep in mind that something random will always be added so the name you suggest would become a prefix.

User provides:
vm-somename

Veeam creates the unique number and type
vm-somename<unique number><type>

vm-somename-01
vm-somename-01-nic
...

So I'm only opting for a static prefix, VBA should dynamicly do the numbering and types.

[b.vanhaastrecht]

It's the same naming technique Azure Virtual Desktop uses for their session hosts deployment.

[nielsengelen]

Yes, I understand the idea. I only stated about the random part (which we control as well) to assure no issues with potential duplicates happen. This is my current view/concern on it (without in-depth research) and we will need to do the research on it before we could finalize this (meaning the random part may not even be needed at all ).

Thanks!