Limits on SQL Server 2014 AlwaysOn Availabiliy Groups

I have a unique scenario that may be beyond what AG can handle. I have 2800+ small independent databases that I want to put onto a 2 server AG Group.

First of all, can anyone validate this article:

If it's valid, then it looks like we cannot support the number of databases.

I'd also be interested to know if there is a recommended maximum number of databases supported. I've seen several references to Microsoft testing up to 100 databases per server but I cannot determine if this is correct or not.
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

EugeneZ ZhitomirskySQL SERVER EXPERTCommented:
Prerequisites, Restrictions, and Recommendations for AlwaysOn Availability Groups (SQL Server)

"Maximum number of availability groups and availability databases per computer: The actual number of databases and availability groups you can put on a computer (VM or physical) depends on the hardware and workload, but there is no enforced limit. Microsoft has extensively tested with 10 AGs and 100 DBs per physical machine. Signs of overloaded systems can include, but are not limited to, worker thread exhaustion, slow response times for AlwaysOn system views and DMVs, and/or stalled dispatcher system dumps. Please make sure to thoroughly test your environment with a production-like workload to ensure it can handle peak workload capacity within your application SLAs. When considering SLAs be sure to consider load under failure conditions as well as expected response times.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Vitor MontalvãoMSSQL Senior EngineerCommented:
I have 2800+ small independent databases that I want to put onto a 2 server AG Group.
Are those 2800 databases needs High Availability (HA) and Disaster Recovery (DR)? I mean, how bad is for the businness if they are unavailable for few hours?
HA and DR have costs and that's why you should chose well which databases are worth to have an HA and DR solutions.
Jacob78Author Commented:
SLA's on those databases are 99.99% so we need some sort of redundancy. Based on what I've found, we'll probably abandon AG's and move to a standard MSCS SQL Cluster. Any additional input/recommendations?
Vitor MontalvãoMSSQL Senior EngineerCommented:
Cluster instances aren't solution for DR but HA. You can keep Clustering for HA and find some solution to replicate the databases to DR site.
Vitor MontalvãoMSSQL Senior EngineerCommented:
Jacob, do you still need more help on this question?
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft SQL Server

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.