204
Running a organization with D365 CE + Portals and Marketing. The webResourceBase and ribbonClientMetatdataBase consume more than 3 gb of data, and this is something we can't control! The CRM solution is pretty vanilla without custom ribbon and only 1 custom javascript. Tables like this should not count in our complete storage.
Category: Admin Center
STATUS DETAILS
Completed
Ideas Administrator

Thanks for your feedback. 

System entities are included in the database storage as indicated in https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/admin/capacity-storage. The Web resource entity will be changed to file capacity instead of database capacity for 2021 Release Wave 1.

Comments

T

We are also facing same issue of storage in Webresource and ribbon metadata

Category: Admin Center

T

Hi,

I have already a few customers complaining about this issue. They don't have that much users and they are already over capacity after a few months and this without entering that much data.

We always foresee 3 environments (DEV/TEST/LIVE) and this takes up +30% of the total capacity. Which means that I often can't look for an UAT environment, without have to buy very expensive extra GB's. After some calculation I can say that an OOB environment takes up 3GB without any customer data...

The biggest consumer is the "WebresourceBase". Nevertheless, the other "Not Data" related entities also take a lot of capacity.

Buying extra GB is also very expensive for smaller companies and not an option.

Kind Regards,
Frederic

Category: Admin Center

T

Same for Ribbon table, and many others

Category: Admin Center

T

I'm new to the Power Platform and have spent months learning the ropes and putting together a solid intuitive Canvas and DataVerse application for my local school.

Field testing has been great and they are keen to roll out testing across the campus as am I but I can't now progress given I'm uncertain as to the risk to the app given the Admin Centre Capacity screen which states "Your organization (tenant) is over capacity. This will impact certain environment operations." !!!

This is entirely due to the WebResourceBase issue over which I have no control.

I Have a support ticket open but if the resolution is not forthcoming I will lose my first potential client :-(

Category: Admin Center

T

I'm glad MS have identified this issue and reclassified WebResourceBase to File storage and not DB. The problem we have like many above, is that we can no longer create Sandbox instances due to the administrative enablement restrictions with the Oct release. Now, we're stuck where it will cost us around $500USD/month in additional DB capacity just to provision our SB instance until an update is available next year. This could equate to $3KUSD of additional cost or a 30% uplift on the customers current monthly licensing.

This only happened once we enabled Field Service for the customer, so we're confident its the FS Web Resources that's choked the system. So now, we cannot perform any development for the customer, notwithstanding significant extra cost for them. What would be good for now is for MS to retract the administrative constraints that prevent certain functions to be performed on environments that go over their limit, until the 2021 Wave 1 Release becomes available, or allow tickets to be raised to MS to temporarily increase storage (or heck, create a SB environment) until the issue is addressed by MS.

Category: Admin Center

T

In addition to what others already mentioned, Microsoft should not charge something like "LocalizedLabel", "RelevanceSearch" as well. Microsoft should pay more attention or review to all these and consider which ones really should be charged to the customers. Don't just blindly charge them.

Category: Admin Center

T

Totally agree with Thomas. All the system tables that grow uncontrollably adds up to several GBs for us. It's one thing if it stays static but it grows unexpectedly and we have to keep paying for more storage.

Category: Admin Center

T

The fact that this has moved into planned is just amazing, but I hope you are still open for adjustments to the planned features.

Moving the webresources is absolutely going to free up a lot of storage space, but it doesn't really stop there.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/hngGsGU8ybi8yqhJ8
This is a list of my top 10 tables in Dynamcis production, and none of them are data storage that I do anything about.

If you bought a 5gb plan from your cellphone carrier, what would you say if 250mb of that plan was locked each month because they needed that data to ping your devices location. No way would you accept that.

I just feel we should make sure it feels like a true SAAS solution where we pay for usage, and not "hardware"

Category: Admin Center

T

Totally agree with the above. Customers should not be made to pay for something that is beyond their control. I realised the 'Webresourcebase', 'SystemFormBase' and 'ribbonclientmetadatabase' gets much bigger after each major upgrade (i.e. the yearly Wave 1 and 2). So here we are trying all sorts of measures to reduce the storage only to have Microsoft adding new solutions and inflating our storage again.

These tables should be excluded from the storage quota.

Category: Admin Center

T

Totally agree with this, our sandbox/uat environments are increasing in the same fashion. We are having to delete non-essential environments just to keep under storage quotas causing development practices and processes to be hindered.

Category: Admin Center