Workstation Asset Tags

Smooth

Member
Nov 15, 1999
38
0
0
We are starting the process to create asset tags for our workstations. We have about 60 workstations currently across a WAN. I was wondering what other people are using as a number system or what type of info should be on the asset tag. We were thinking of a one line serail number. Like SE10102HP800P128M98.

SE=Company Initials
101=Computer #
02=Year of Purchase
HP=Manufacturer
800P=Processor Speed
128M=Memory
98=OS

Is that too much information? Were are going to be auditing using a database for our records. This number will match the number in the database. Any suggestions? Thanks.
 

dbwillis

Banned
Mar 19, 2001
2,307
0
0
We do it like this:>
[domain][state][type][number]

PLCCTD1022 is a "PLC" domain PC in "CT", desktop "D", number "1022"
 

Garion

Platinum Member
Apr 23, 2001
2,331
7
81
Whatever you do, don't include anything in an asset tag or standard system name that might ever be changed - IE, if you hard-code in the RAM, then decide to upgrade it later, your tag won't match the system's actual configuration.

In all honesty, I'd keep it simple. Start with computer #100, and go up. If you want to track more information, do so, but remember that less is better in this kind of thing. Something like year of purchase, vendor, model, then followed by some kind of increment might be OK. IE, "02-HP-VectraGL-132"

- G
 

gaidin123

Senior member
May 5, 2000
962
1
0
Go with Garion's advice. :)

Our asset tags are simply a department id with a machine number. If you want all the current specs for it you just look up that machine in a database. We change OSes, add RAM, swap hard drives, and even swap processors on occasion so including that in the tag would be bad. The year of purchase might be a good thing to include imho. If your company sticks to an X year replacement cycle seeing that on a tag might give you a quick idea of how old a machine is if you're physically looking at it.

Gaidin
 

Smooth

Member
Nov 15, 1999
38
0
0
Thanks guys. Great suggestions. I think we will keep it simple. If not, that would kill the whole idea of a database. Thanks again.