You might as well just call them "1", "2", and "3". The only time this kind of
naming scheme is appropriate is when you have a lot of machines and there are
no reasons for any human to distinguish between them. For example, a master
computer might be controlling an array of one hundred computers. In this case,
it makes sense to refer to them with the array indices.
When you're starting off with your cute naming scheme, how do you know how many machines you'll manage in the end? Most places I've worked at have hundreds of servers. Using a simple, easy to follow, don't-make-me-think standard from the beginning is the only thing that makes sense IMO.
To give a server a meaningful name, use DNS.
edit: Also, to take your complaint about "i-977.. what was the rest of it?" and turn it around - imagine this scenario: provision 20 new app servers named foo40..foo59 OR provision 20 new app servers and think of 20 cool names to match our existing cool naming scheme of leonardo donatello michaelangelo raphael master-splinter shredder blah blah blah :)
To give a server a meaningful name, use DNS.
edit: Also, to take your complaint about "i-977.. what was the rest of it?" and turn it around - imagine this scenario: provision 20 new app servers named foo40..foo59 OR provision 20 new app servers and think of 20 cool names to match our existing cool naming scheme of leonardo donatello michaelangelo raphael master-splinter shredder blah blah blah :)