Forum Discussion
ADFS and Azure SQL Managed Instance
Thank you for the detailed response!
Here is the link to doc that states that it isn't supported: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-fs/overview/ad-fs-requirements
This line is buried in there: "Unfortunately, SQL Azure is not supported for the AD FS configuration database."
Right now our team is looking at options, and the option they are leaning towards is setting up a pair of VMs and running SQL Server in an always on configuration. I've not done the numbers, but I think moving to MI might be better in the long run.
Ah, okay. It's under the hardware requirements, where I had checked that article but only under the "configuration database requirements", where - ironically - it doesn't get a mention:
AD FS is and always has been the most basic of SQL clients, so this won't stop us. Given it works on SQL 2008 and above, the only real barrier to Azure SQL MI is the authentication side, which we've successfully navigated using the SQL MI Windows authentication trust-flow model.
The irony with Azure SQL MI is that its specific focus is being able to lift-and-shift more on-prem SQL workloads, yet when it comes to many Windows Server roles and wider Microsoft platforms, there's a massive hole in their testing and support for their own direction.
You'll find yourself doing a good amount of this kind of cost/benefit analysis of your own, as if you wait for the product teams to get it together, do the testing and issue a support statement, you'll still be running on-prem services for years to come (which doesn't bother me as I'm a hybrid guy, but it's out of step with Microsoft's constant sales pitches to move everything to the cloud.)
Edited to add:
Running two IaaS Azure guests which in turn run traditional SQL in an AlwaysOn configuration does have some technical merit, not the least of which are that it's easier to set up and is fully-supported.
That said, the total cost of both guests plus relevant SQL Server licencing can quickly end up being the more expensive path depending on how many databases you can consolidate on SQL MI.
Cheers,
Lain