Increase the number of databases limit
The current limit of databases in a SQL Managed Instance is 100.
In our current situation when migration our SaaS products to Azure, we have over 4000 sql databases (one pr customer).
We would really love to skip managing our SQL VMs ourselves, but we are not really ready for jumping right to Azure SQL and Elastic Pools.
Our Database Administrators run scripts the old fashioned way and looping through thousands of databases in a script. This is not possible with Azure SQL and Elastic Pools.
But if we go for SQL Managed Instance, we would get over 40 managed instances, and that is too many in our opinion.
If the limit had been increased to 500 databases, we would immediately scrapped our SQL VMs and went for Managed Instances instead
For multitenant Saas applications that use one db per customer, trial users will create databases automatically, small ones with nearly no load. Either increase the db count limit or make some very low power/low cost managed instances. This limitation kills MI for us. We would need at least 500.
Thomas B commented
Same here, we have 600+ databases, with very small usage.
We are also having 600 database , creating for every 100 datbase a new instace is bit too much , seeng the resourse utilistaion ,
Jordi Meijer commented
We are running into this similar issue. We have over 2000 SQL databases and we're hoping this limit of 100 databases can be increased.
David Petercheff commented
We have the same issue. We'd LOVE to switch from IaaS SQL VMs to Managed Instance but we have 5 databases per client many of which are small. We cannot use Elastic pools with a 500 database limit without making significant architecture changes. I'd be willing to pay a little more due to the benefits of MI but switching with a 100 database limit far from cost effective.
MS Support said "The hard limit set by our product team is to make sure the service and performance can be stably and consistently provided to customers." I could understand having a limit based on storage size to ensure high SLAs, but a 100 database limit seems artificial.
Jing Kan commented
Although we can add more instances to support more databases, we still want to scale up without change our service level logic.
We hope the limit can be shifted considering resource utilization. We ended up getting another Managed Instance due to the same issue but resources are underutilized. I am not sure if using MIs was the best choice in terms of cost-effectiveness.
Kyle Nunery commented
Running into a similar issue. We have close to 600 sql databases so we cannot use SQK Managed Instance without significant application changes.