SQL Azure, more scalable pricing for multiple small databases
SQL Azure pricing currently does not make sense when you have multiple small databases which do not get used much.
When I have 1 database with 1 GB of data, I pay $9.99, but when I have 20 small databases of 50 MB I have to pay
$4,995 * 20 = $99.9
Please consider different pricing models. Maybe based on the sum of the data size of all the SQL Azure DBs. So 20x50 MB would be the same price as 1 GB DB.
Or create the option to have some sort of (small) reserved instance for a fixed price where you can add as many DBs as you want.
With the current pricing, it's cheaper to host small databases using SQLExpress in a VM. But that's not what we want, we want to move to the cloud.
Thanks for your feedback here. We recently started a public preview of elastic databases which helps ISVs who have large numbers of DBs. Full details here https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/sql-database-elastic-pool/
I appreciate Microsoft offering hosting, but they've made the pricing AND terminology confusing. I agree that the database pricing needs to support the multiple small db's scenario. But I also think they should have 2 pricing models: 1 for large enterprise and maybe medium-size businesses (which to me seems to be the current model), and 1 model for small and/or indie businesses.
Absolutely this is an issue, we could reconfigure our app to possible all use the same database but that isn't a better solution - it's only a pricing driving solution. We're talking databases as small as 20mb - but we can't get the speeds we want unless we spend $200 a month per db (and get 250gig of space each)
Uwe Hartmann commented
Totally agree with Anonymous. Make it like websites and it would be perfect. In particular agencies and business applications where each customer has its own database would benefit significantly. Resources should also be pooled e.g. one application with 10 customers, everyone has a S2 database with average performance. The databases are rarely used all at once. Customers cannot enjoy the performance benefits of the DTUs of the remaining idling databases.
I agree with this but would like to see a model like websites where I pay for a database server with a specific performance profile and I am then free to host multiple databases within some aggregate database size limit.
Ian Bradley commented
I totally agree. We also would like to see an option that covers this scenario.