allow database to reside in different resource group to server
Currently, SQL server databases must be created in the same resource group as the server. It would be great to allow databases to be created in different resource groups. This would allow full environments to be created and destroyed while leveraging elastic pools.
Ossi Kasurinen commented
Now you can achieve the same thing (different resource groups) with the App Service Plan and Web Apps, so it would be nice to have this "feature" for the SQL servers and Databases too!
Mohammad Imran commented
It will be really helpful in managing databases for different environments and for many projects.
Debbie Edwards commented
This would really help me with all the development databases Im adding with tagging at the resource group level
Rob Head commented
Strongly agree with Bjorn
- and make it possible to create new empty databases in ARM templates configured to use the database-server and elastic pool that resides in a different resourcegroup.
please add this. for organization of micro services, it's important to keep databases within the same resource group as other features used by the service.
Absolutely need this. I would prefer even more that that sql server and database had the same quota instead of 21 servers and 5000 databases per server. With the push towards app-centric infrastructure with PaaS, This is a gaping issue. The other issue would this would be that $15/mo extra per server for sql auditing would need to go away.
If we can't have those things then we need to at least be able to put databases in separate resource groups from the servers.
We need this, or we need SQL Database servers per subscription limit (even 150) to be removed, this is making environment management harder.
This is a must-have feature for folks working with microservices - to be able to have a central server and elastic pool for databases belonging to different microservice-scoped resource groups.