Storing data in dataverse is very expensive. Especially the data that is stored in the actual database (db data). Hence, for many customer with larger datasets, typically with some B2C type of business, it is a good practice to overviewing the data you have in the system and figure out different ways of keeping it from costing too much money.
Below are 10 tips you should consider to keep the data in check.
Make a deletion list – and set up deletion jobs
Flatten verbose fields
Use virtual tables
Use datalake with analytics
Use datalake for archiving
Compress complex structures
Clean up non-production environments
Revise datamodel
Revise integrations
Set lifecycle for instances
1 – Make a deletion list and set up deletion jobs
The first thing you need to start doing is to go through the biggest storage contributors. You can find which these are by looking in the Power Platform Admin Center under “Resources -> Capacity”. Open the view of each of the dataverse instances by clicking on the small chart symbol next to the instance.
You can export the full list by clicking on the hamburger symbol in the right hand corner of the graph. See picture below:
You can then start by trying to break down each table from the top. Based on the picture above, ask yourself questions like;
Do we need to store and save all orders? By removing some orders, maybe cancelled orders, we can cut down on two of the three largest tables as the order rows are removed at the same time
What activities are really causing activitypointer (the common table for all activities) to become so large? It is quite common that the email table is a culprit here, as the body of the emails, is usually a quite a few bytes and with thousands or tens of thousands of emails, they do add up. Marketing integrations can also bloat the activitiy pointer. I suggest investigating this further by exporting the data to an Azure Datalake and analyzing it with PowerBI. It is also quite common that not all emails need to be saved, for instance if you have email enabled queues like support@contoso.com it is quite common that you get some spam into this. Maybe searching for “unsubscribe” in email body to see if there might be some newsletter looking spam which enable you to remove them.
Are there any patterns of contacts and/or leads that can be removed? Working with B2C you might find that there are quite a lot of contacts and leads with incorrect data or similar. Ask yourself what value a lead with no phone number and no email has… removing contact data will also remove customeraddress as there will be at least two customer address records for each contact automatically created. The same goes for leads but in that case it is the leadaddress where extra data is being created.
The point with the list is trying to identify possible patterns of data that can be deleted. I typically have one row per rule like so:
Table
Method
Rule
Contact
Bulk Delete
status code = inactive AND modifiedon older than 6m
Email
Bulk Delete
body contains “unsubscribe” AND modifiedon older than 1m
Email
Flatten w Power Automate
Outgoing AND subject = “Covid information”
2 – Flatten verbose fields
Sometime it can be a good idea to just clean out or some “body” data. For example if you have sent emails to a lot of customers with the same Covid related information, the actual content of that email is the same for all and is known by everyone. Hence the body can be removed which can typically be done with a Power Automate Flow or SSIS/Kingswaysoft depending on the size of the data.
3 – Use virtual tables
Not all data needs to be stored in the expensive dataverse database. The recommendation from Microsoft is typically that data which you interact with should be in dataverse and the rest can be somewhere else. As it is now possible to use SQL as a source for virtual tables, as well as Cosmos DB and many other sources, moving data out of dataverse and accessing it through virtual tables can be a viable option.
Virtual tables is also something that should be considered when designing integrations. It is not always critical that all data actually reside in dataverse. Sometime just being able to access the data through dataverse is good enough. Especially if the data source is fast, it isn’t that much data, the data only needs to be accessed seldomly, It is also easier to use virtual tables if the data is read-only and used for reference.
4 – Use datalake for analytics
Dataverse isn’t really a good source for analytics. All endpoints (even the T-SQL) go through the application layer to the database. This makes large data crunching less than optimal in dataverse. This is also why Microsoft have developed methods for replicating the dataverse data to external stores. The just discontinued Data Export Service (DES) which synchronized data to an Azure SQL and the new Azure Synapse Link which synchronizes data to a datalake, are clear examples of this.
Hence, a good architecture for analytics of dataverse data is doing the analytics outside dataverse and the current best place for this is in a datalake with Azure Synapse Analytics.
This also has a direct implication on the data stored in Dataverse, the data you have in dataverse that is only needed for analytics, might not actually be needed in dataverse anymore. This can be anything from old orders, and of course all old communication like emails and phone calls. Datalakes are also way more efficient for doing large scale AI/ML analytics, which many organizations are looking for.
5 – Use datalake for archiving
If you havn’t already thought about it, a datalake can hence be used as an archive for data that you might need but isn’t actually something that you will use every day. Often a lot of data is stored for compliance reasons. When setting up archiving, it is important to make sure that what ever method you use, you probably want to keep the data in the archive after it has been deleted in dataverse, hence you might need to move the data from the initial storage container to the actual archive making sure to not actually move any deletes.
Microsoft have announced that they will be putting their own hot/cold-storage solution for dataverse into public preview this spring. This sounds a lot like some archiving functionality and I am certainly looking forward to seeing what it will be, how it will work and the licensing for it.
6 – Compress complex structures
For some businesses it is often needed to have quite a complex datastructure to handle the operations of what is done. It can be complex order structures with allocations of order rows to specific users or product configurations with billing, logistics and provisioning settings. Once an order has bee fullfilled in all aspects, it might not be required to store and keep all that complexity. It might just be required to keep the order header and the most critical information about what the order rows were about. Perhaps even flattened into a JSON or text field for future reference. If it is possible to move from a order header + 10 records in related tables to just a order header with a summarized text, for thousands of orders, than can save quite a lot of space.
7 – Clean up non-production environments
Data isn’t only stored in the production instances of dataverse. Many times production instances are copied and turned into test or staging instances. Integrations may be running towards development and test instances generating substantial amounts of data. Have a look at your non-production instances and check which data you actually need in them.
8 – Revise datamodel
Sometimes datamodels can become unnecessarily complex. This is most common when someone with little experience of dataverse and model driven applications design solutions. Other typical problems I have seen are repurposing of tables like leads, accounts, sales order to other simpler purposes. The problem from a dataverse storage perspective becomes that the additional storage overhead in these cases, especially in cases with businesses that have a lot of customers, can be rather drastic. Redesigning the datamodel to be more sleek can make it both more user friendly and use less storage.
9 – Revise integrations
Integrating data to dataverse can be a large culprit for data. For instance, many marketing applications generate quite a lot of data regarding the behaviors of customers. This data can then be integrated to dataverse to be used there. As behavioural data can be very granular, to the level of “Customer x has be send email y”, “customer x has read email y”, “customer x has clicked link z in email y” this data can take up substantial amounts of storage if integrated to dataverse. What options exist for this are different for different marketing applications. For ex Adobe Marketing can shut off this integration and can instead synchronize behavioral data to an Azure datalake where it can be unified with other dataverse data.
ERP integrations are also a common area of problem. ERP systems often have a very deep granualar level of data which might not be needed in dataverse/Dynamics 365 CE. Sometime just enabling deeplinking directly to the ERP system can be a better method, combined with virtual tables. However, this is not always the case and sometimes the best solution is just synchornization of the data.
However, do recognize that there should be a reason for having the data in dataverse. It should genrally be actively used.
10 – Set lifecycle for instances
Having dataverse instances with a bit unclear usage and not knowing what they are for and if they can be removed is, of course, a source of quite a lot of data consumption. By clearly assigning owners, reasons etc for all instances it makes answering the question “Do we really need ‘Internal test applications sprint 7′” or is it just an old remnant from a two year old development. This is part of the Center of Excellence starter kit and the processes that are important to set up in relation to this.
I hope any of these 10 tips have been useful. If you think so, the best way to thank me is to tweet or share your thoughts on this in social media. Also feel free to leave a comment below.
Perhaps you have some other thing that you think should be done or that I missed something. If so, please share in the comments below.
As I mentioned in my previous articles, I am trying to investigate the details of how the entitlements and API Service Protections are working and are planning to be rolled out (in the case of entitlements). I had a very interesting call with some of the nice people in the product team last which shed some more light on the entitlement issue and the best practice of how they suggest the API is to be used. The suggested method is that the API request load be spread out over the different users in the instance/tenant using impersonation. I will walk through what this means and what I think about this in the article below.
First, if you have not read my previous post on entitlement, I do suggest you do this first. It describes what entitlements are compared to the API Service Protection. I still see a lot of people mixing these up and that is not strange, but they are two different aspects of this, and we need to keep track of what we are talking about.
As mentioned in that article, the point of the enacting the Entitlements, when that is coming, which still is a bit unclear, is so that the compute consumed by a small organization is proportionate compared to a large organization. So, let us go back to the actual per-user licenses and have a look at an example.
Let us say we have a 5 000 Sales Enterprise org, that means that we get:
5 000 users who each have 20 000 API request entitlements.
100 000 API Requests for non-licensed users.
Compare this to a 10 Sales Enterprise org which will have.
5 users who each have 20 000 API request entitlements.
100 000 API Requests for non-licensed users
Both these are totally independent of how many instances the first or the second org has.
The first observation is of course that the 100k API Request for non-licensed users do not scale at all with the size of the organization or the number of users. How does this then go in-line with the goal that a large org should have more compute than a small? The second observation is that 20 000 API requests, which actual also the normal UI will be using, is very large. You would have to be one busy salesperson to be able to generate 20 000 API requests manually in 24 hours, so busy I am tempted to say it is virtually impossible to break unless you have very heavy automations running under your account. This was also what the Microsoft rep I talked to mentioned, that this large number is to be used on a per user basis. Hence the natural question was, if we use impersonation in the API, will the Entitlements honor that? The answer was unequivocally: yes.
Hence, this is the clear answer on how we need to create future integrations. We need to spread the load using impersonation over many of the users in the system.
If we do this the right way, it would probably be possible for most organizations to, over time be able to build a fix for this.
However, it will not be easy as we need to have a tight control of the privileges of all the users. Let me give you an example from a customer I work with:
They are an online travel agency and have people working at the destinations with very restricted privileges. A lot of bookings (orders) are integrated from the booking systems, these should hence be spread out over many users instead of the single application user being used today. There is not natural user to direct the bookings to, as it is a B2C business, and no person at the travel agency “owns” these customers per se, so the load needs to be distributed in a more randomized fashion. So, let us say we have these users:
John Smith – System Admin (Full access)
John Doe – Power User (can create orders but not refunds)
John Surf Dude – Destination Specialist (can view but not create orders, cannot even read refunds)
When rebuilding the integration, we can use user John Smith and John Doe but not John Surf Dude and the only way of generically knowing this is checking what we want to do and comparing this to the privileges of each user to get a shortlist of users that can be used for integration.
However, we do not want to use a user that is close to 20k API requests for that day, so we might need to query the current API Request entitlement usage per user, so that we can filter the current shortlist to an even shorter list before knowing which users to use for impersonation.
Analysis
A way forward. I think this can be used, although there are some tricks to it. For my customer we might be able to cut a significant amount of API calls this way which will make a huge difference when we compared to not using this technique.
Impersonation not always viable – as in the example above, when there is not obvious owner to link to, we need to figure some other logic out of how to spread the API entitlement load. And things start to become tricky.
Impersonation is complex.
Impersonation requires more complex code. For several reasons. And the risks for errors are a lot larger as changing users is tricky. It is not strange that Microsoft still have not implemented the feature idea to be able to do user impersonation in the Power Platform UI just shows that this is less than trivial (https://powerusers.microsoft.com/t5/Power-Apps-Ideas/Allow-Admins-to-login-as-Users/idi-p/215779)
More complex dependencies on security model As mentioned above, trying to execute an action as a user that does not have the correct privileges won’t work, so we need to know that first. And setting everyone as System Administrator just will not work.
Logical user or just random users – trying to map the users to some logical connection from the other system or just randomizing the load. Logical user is probably preferrable but probably will not be a very common pattern.
Integration often system-to-system not user-to-user
Integrations are more often done on a system-to-system basis, not user-to-user basis. When looking at CRM-ERP integrations for instance, the user base of these two systems seldom overlaps except for a few users.
Takes time to refactor code to handle impersonation – There are many organizations out there with numerous complex integrations. And changing integrations on this level will require significant work to be done and the question will be if there is time to complete this work before the entitlement feature goes to GA?
Strange audit trail – if we use randomized users to update or create data in dataverse that will undoubtedly create very strange audit trails, created by and modified by fields. These are some facts that need to be taken into consideration.
Power App – per App users have very few requests – Not all licenses have 20k API requests per 24h. The Power App per App has only 1000 API Request entitlement per 24h, these can run out just by a using the system heavily. So do consider the API Entitlements when looking at the licenses.
Still not GA – Entitlements have still not gone GA. Hence the best time to let Microsoft know what you think is good or bad about this is now. But do be civil, there will be some feature like this, that will handle fairness management of compute consumption. Contact Microsoft through your local User Group, your local MVP or via the comment below or send me a message on LinkedIn and I will put you in contact with the right people. You can also submit an idea to the idea portal.
There might be a point to binding all entitlements to users, in the case that if, in the future, any overshooting would not only result in angry emails, but service degradation or shut-off for that user. Imagine having creative citizen devs creating some infinitive looping Flow or massively recursive logic unknowingly which causes a lot of requests. This approach would then just cause a block for that user, not the entire tenant. Significantly reducing the severity of the problem.
Suggestions
Personally, I think this method is just way to complex. I think just having a simple pooling on the tenant level of all the API entitlements would be fair and then deducing all usage from this. I think that Microsoft could skip the 100 000 for the non-licensed user, for simplicity. Based on the examples above, that would make:
5000 Sales Enterprise
5 000 users who each have 20 000 API request entitlements.
Total API Entitlement for the Tennant: 100 M / 24 h
5 Sales Enterprise users
5 users who each have 20 000 API request entitlements.
Total API Entitlement for the Tennant: 100 K / 24 h
And all users, and all non-licensed users use from the same pool.
As for the potential problem of creative users potentially blocking the entire tenant, I would suggest adding a “per user” API request limit, which can be changed by the admins, but by default is set at exactly the same as the entitlements. That would allow admins to reduce the limit to 10k for enterprise users, to ensure the server-to-server integrations were still enabled in a proper and entitled way.
I think this would align with Microsoft’s goals and make it easy to understand for customers and we do not have to rewrite tons of code and make strange workarounds. But maybe there is something I am missing. If so, and you see it, please leave a comment!
Should a five user organization be entitled to the same amount of compute as a 5 000 user organization?
Entitlements are the limitations that Microsoft have set on the platform that are based on which type of license each user has. This is not the same as the API Service limits which are much more liberal. The entitlements have not yet been fully enforced as the reporting capabilities of the platform have not been rolled out fully yet. But they will. With this blog post I attempt to give my perspective on entitlements on the Power Platform and Dynamics 365 (CRM part).
My previous post was about API Service limits which are commonly referred to as the throttling limits of the platform. The entitlements limits (and here) have another part in the Microsoft docs that go into these a bit deeper. I’d first like to go into why there are two different “protections” or limitations.
The API Service limits are there to protect the platform from noisy neighbours. Some of us, that have been around since the earlier days of Dynamics 365/CRM online remember that the performance used to be rather shaky. This could often be due to the fact that some other instance on the same hardware your instance was hosted on, was being slammed with massive amounts of requests, like during a migration. To make sure that this “noisy neighbour” problem doesn’t occur, the API-limits have been put in place and since they have, things have been a lot better so they do seem to work.
The Entitlements are there for another reason. Let’s say you buy two (2) Dynamics 365 Sales users and then use integrations with a custom built front end for B2C purposes with one of those users (or an app user), and, still within the limits of the API Service limits, hammer the API:s from day to night with an amazing amount of requests. The B2C aspect would be covered from a licensing perspective in what was previously called “external connector” license and is nowdays included in the normal license. However, the amount of compute that the instance is utilizing is way above what you are paying for. This is the reason why Microsoft have created the entitlements, as far as I know anyway. And I think it only makes sense that there is some kind of reasonable proportionality to that.
To quote the Microsoft docs page: “These limits represent the number of requests users are entitled to make each day. The allocated limit depends on the type of license assigned to each user.“
What is a request? The first question is then, what is a request? Previously we were told, that a batch request (ExecuteMultiple) was one (1) request but that has since changed and is now considered to all the subparts. I would even think that a batch request has the extra overhead of the batch itself. Hence, a batch request with 10 creates, will actually be counted as 11 requests; 1 for the batch, and 10 for the creates. The exact definitions are not disclosed but we get a rather good description from the docs with this paragraph, where I have highlighted some interesting parts:
“For Dataverse, API requests include all data operations that interact with table rows where rows are created, retrieved, updated, or deleted (CRUD). Special operations such as share and assign are includedbecause they are considered updates. These requests can be from any client or application and using any endpoint. These include, but are not limited to, operations performed by plug-ins, async workflows, custom controls, and $batch (ExecuteMultiple) operations. There are a small set of system internal operations that are excluded, like login, sign out, and system metadata operations.”
The important takeaway here is hence that you cannot create a workaround by using a plugin and using the internal context pseudo-api to do the calls, as these are counted as well. Difference might be that they are done in the context of a specific user and that user has a rather large entitlement, which might hence “flatten the curve” so to speak. An interesting aspect, though is the exception to this rule:
“Power Platform API request allocations include use of Power Automate, AI Builder, and Connector APIs. All requests through a connector that result in a Dataverse request will represent 1 Power Platform request.”
This strongly indicates that Microsoft wants us to use the Power Platform tools and that these should not at least have additional costs. There are, however, still some inconsistencies in this area that I really hope that they fix, such as:
Microsoft supplied integrations in ADF
Integrations to Dynamics 365 Finance & Operations
Dynamics 365 Business Central
Exports to ADLS
Data Export Service
The latter two can be really heavy on the API:s if you have an enterprise system or a B2C system. I work with a customer which currently have a database of >400 GB which uses Data Export service and the amount of notifications on the Data Export Service just for Contacts for a year often exceed the hundreds of millions.
Other areas which are not mentioned but which I think are included are addon first-party apps like Customer Insight (Sales Insights) which actually uses a ADLS in the background (not that you can actually access it). I have heard stories of support tickets where Microsoft support have blamed the API Service protection for hitting the ceiling when it was Sales Insight that caused it, which would indicate that these are actually counted. I think the intention is to include all of these so that the license for these cover the API entitlements. I just wish they would fix the gaps as customers are being affected.
Entitlement telemetry might not be the same as API Service protection telemetry That actually brings up another interesting aspect. The measurements that are used for the API Service protections are probably NOT the same as the measurements that are used for entitlements, but this is based on my personal hunch, and not any kind of facts. Mainly based on the assumption that I think that the areas that are excluded from entitlement measures above, probably are not excluded from the API Service protection.
Another definition of request!? On this page there is another definition of what a request is that is different from the one above. I believe this is older than the one mentioned above, as it uses the term “CDS” which has been replaced by dataverse now. I am not sure though as this page last change is dated on the second of feb 2021 while the other the 5:th of March 2020. The main difference is that this does not make the exception mentioned in the article above, hence every call through a connector, every successful or failed call in Power Automate will be counted as one request. Hopefully Microsoft will clear this up soon.
Entitlements per user At this link you can find the specific entitlements per license. They are all measured on a 24 h period and range from 20 000 for the full enterprise versions of Dynamics 365 to Power Apps per app plan which get 1000 requests.
Entitlements for non-licensed users, which mainly will be application registrations/application users are fixed per tennant based on the highest licensed purchased on the tennant. This means the following pooled included non-licensed entitlements.
The important note here is that this does not scale at all, but is fixed. And if you plan to do some integrations with a Power Apps only tennant, you’d be wise to buy at least one Dynamics 365 Enterprise, just to get the non-licensed user entitlements, as the Sales Enterprise is around $95 and each additional 10 000 is $50, which means that the saving to get to a 100 000 calls / 24h is:
Buying extra capacity It is also possible to buy extra API capacity. You can read more about this in the Licensing Guide for the Power Platform. I am not able to find a current price for this at this time, but the list price was previously set at $50 (per 10 000 for 24h). These are then to be allocated to the users as you wish.
Overshooting “Users will not be blocked from using apps for occasional and reasonable overagesat this point of time.“ What will happen when or if you overshoot? A very important question. Most organizations will at some time do this, most probably during migration of data from the old systems. The statement from Microsoft above, especially the highlighted “at this point of time.” is rather omnious. It does indicate that at some time the hammer will come down. But at this time it won’t, admins will be harassed with emails about overshooting and just as with overshooting data capacity, they might start with blocking some features when you are overshooting. It is mentioned in one of the articles in the FAQ that after the transition period they will start blocking. So that will be a real fact unless they change their mind on that.
My very strong advice, is hence that all organizations that are not compliant need to start looking at this as soon as possible. I have some tips on what you can do further down in this article. Please refer to these and feel free to leave a comment if you have questions on the subject not answered here.
ISV Bundling There are many ISV:s which export rather large amounts of data. The first ones that come to mind are the Marketing Automation products like Adobe Marketing, Click Dimensions, Dot Digital and more. These all synchronize contacts, marketinglists and marketinglistmembers, at least, which for larger installations can be quite large datasets. I do think it would be advantageous if these ISV:s could include the API Entitlements that are required, or if they are billed by Microsoft to the ISV which in turn bills the customer with a surcharge. At the very least Microsoft have to take ISV:s into the equation here as they are an essential part of the ecosystem, especially from the customer perspective.
Tips on how to handle future entitlement enforcement
Start by using the PPAC to get an overview of how your situation looks even though you might not get an exact picture.
Consider the overhead of batching. There can be performance advantages to batching as mentioned in my previous article. But there needs to be
Consider “outsourcing large datasets” to ADLS – although the ADLS export also uses API-calls.
Maybe not a problem if short term – for now
Consider using official connectors or Power Automate instead (although that might cause costs in itself)
If building Power App licens based solutions and you have heavy integrations, buy one Dynamics 365 Enterprise license.
If possible impersonate the data load over all the users. This can be done with plugins and synchronous workflows for instance. Patterns that can be used in this case can be staging tables in dataverse where the owner is set and then a plugin is triggered that slices the row into many pieces as the owner of the import record. I am not sure if impersonation using the API will have any effect on this. That needs to be investigated. If it can be used to spread the load, that would be a good pattern to use.
Refactor inefficient code. Depending on implementation maybe increase use of caching or other techniques to reduce the amount of requests. Make sure you have skilled Power Platform/Dynamics 365 developers working with development as knowing how to do this very particular to this platform.
Microsoft representatives, locally in Sweden anyway, are saying to our customers and potential customers that they need not worry about this. I find that message a bit mixed with what I read here. On the other hand I think this will be a very rough change for many organizations. If your organization will be very negativly affected by this and you feel that you are still paying “fairly” for your part, then I suggest you contact Microsoft and describe your business scenario in detail. If you need help with who to contact you can always start with the people who have written the articles who you can ask to forward the articles to the right people, use your local user group or ask some local MVP for help as they often have contacts directly with the product group (and many other experts do too).
Good luck and do leave a comment or share this if you like it!
The team member licensing option is something that has been a subject of debate for quite some time. What can it actually be used for and what not? I have heard “experts” suggesting that it be used for integrations but if your read the Dynamics 365 Licensing Guide, appendix A, you can read all about what Team member licensing is and isn’t. Typical scenarios for Team members are:
Read only users
Users that use only slim parts of the system, and not the “cool” First-Party-App features in Sales, Customer Service, Field Service etc.
Users that just track activities
There are some updates to the details of what a team member can and cannot do, and I think the most important is that a team member cannot CUD (Create, Update or Delete) accounts any more.
How urgent is this? Well, for new instances being created, this will be enforced as of April 1 2020. But for existing instances, it will be enforced on July 1 2020. Hence, you still have some time if you have an exiting org.
You can opt-in to early access updates. Goes without saying that you shouldn’t do in your production system, and probably not even in you dev/test environments since as soon as you have you won’t be able to depoy changes. So, having an out-of-ALM-environment where you can test this might be a good idea.
So, the BIG question is, “Are we compliant?”
Well, there is actually a report that you can generate from the Power Platform Admin Center and I have recorded a video below that shows how you can use that and collate the data with pivoting in Excel.
(Updated) Microsoft recently released some throttling that have been causing some stir in the community, especially since the latest throttle, the concurrency throttling, was not very openly announced, some partners and customers were hit rather hard by it as it affected their abilities to manage large dataloads in the system.
Now Microsoft have announce another API based limitation which is based on the users and the type of licenses the have. You can read some about it here if you like. This article will discuss what this means and my personal view of the good, the bad and the ugly of it.
First of all we need to understand what it is. It is a API limit that will be set per user and based on the type of license that the user is allocated. The highest is if you have a Dynamics 365 App user license, like Sales, Customer Service or similar, which will give you 20 000 requests per 24 hours. The lowest is a Power App – Per App license which will give you 1 000 requests per 24 hours. Note that these are connected to the user and not summed/aggregated to the instance level (allthough I would think that would be a good idea). Well, really, the lowest of them all are Application, Non-interactive or admin-users that don’t use a license as these will be allocated 0.
I have not seen any UI for this yet, so I don’t know how this will look, but what the page is saying is that API-calls can be reallocated from normal users to application users/non-interactive users. (UPDATE – See update at the bottom regarding this, thank you observant readers!) Not sure if it will also be possible to reallocate API-calls between normal user and another normal user.
There will also be an additional SKU for buying 10 000 additional API calls per day that can be allocated to a user.
The Good
What is good about this then you might ask? Well, I think it is fair. Large customers pay a lot of money for their instances and usually use it a lot with a lot of integrations. It is only fair that they are allowed to use the API:s more than a small customer who has created some super duper application that blasts Dynamics with massive amounts of calls. The small customer can still do this, but they just have to pay a bit extra for those API-calls if they arn’t covering that with their users. I also hope that this might enable Microsoft to relax the currently rather tight throttling on the API:s a bit.
According the the licensing documentation in general, existing customers will not be hit by this until October 2020, in other words, more than a year from now. This will hence probably only now affect new customers.
The bad
This implementation certainly has some bad parts. The most obvious is the too stringent connection to users which makes it weird. I don’t know how this will be managed in the UI but let’s say we have an instance with 500 users mixed Sales Enterprise, Customer Service Professional and Team Member. We also have 10 application users that are used for Portals, Forms Pro and custom integrations to many other systems. Each integration using a separate integration user to reduce the attack area in the unlikely event of a hacker attack. So what we will need to do is to first figure out how much API-usage we are using for all the normal users (for instance via PCF:s, Flows, Plugins, Workflows etc) and all the integration application users. Currently the https://admin.powerplatform.microsoft.com does not give us this granularity. There are indications but in this case one would need deep granualar data, preferably with trend analysis.
Another part of this that could be done better is the “buying addional API-calls”. Why not just adapt the method used in Azure? In other words, you pay as you go. With this current method, you have to know beforehand how much a particular user will use and if you overshoot the user will be shut down causing unnecessary support costs for customers, partners and Microsoft.
I also wonder how this practically is going to be handled? Are admins going to go into each of the 500 user records, reduce the API-calls allocated and move to Application users? If the admin moves all calls, which effectivly will stop plugins, workflows, javascripts with server calls etc how will the error handling of that look?
The Ugly
What is really the difference between something bad and something ugly? I would say that something bad is a design decision that we might dislike or might be disadvantage to the customers, it requires some sort of conscious perspective. Ugly on the other hand is the parts where where, in this case, Microsoft just have forgotten to think about something or neglected perspectives which causes issues for partners or customers. Based on this, I would say that the following are the bad aspects of this;
Timing
Again Microsoft are rolling out a change with a rather short timeframe. They probably feel that a month or two of notice by publishing the article above is notice enough, but they have to realize that many customers cannot act that fast. If you are a small customer with extensive use of Dynamics, for instance if you are using Dynamics 365 in a B2C aspect with a Marketing Automation integration and you are targeting millions of customers with sendouts and hits on your webpage being mirrored to your Dynamics all the time, this will cause some hefty API traffic. And your org might not be very big if you are totally e-commerce oriented.
Maybe only new customers, for now
Lastly I really hope that it is true that the API limitation will not affect current customers, it is not very clear and hence we are left in the dark again. If there is a problem with application users etc not being able to log in, I hope Microsoft support will be ready for the storm that will hit them.
On the other hand, new customers might have tested the system, evaluated the costs and are now faced with this. Not sure that will be optimal either, there is risk of loosing a customer or two there.
Communication
As this is a rather drastic change and may be viewed as a “breaking change” if not the one year grace period mentioned in the licensing in general applies to this. No matter, this should have been communicated very clearly months ahead to remove any kind of doubt from partners and customers. Both via blogs, emails to admins of organizations using Application users/non-interactive users as this should be easy to figure out via telemetry. Currently no one knows exactly when this will hit them/their customers or how they are to manage it.
This is generally very unclear. I shouldn’t have to write an article like this, speculating about what is or isn’t going to happen. If I have problems figuring this out, being an MVP, customers are probably very much in the dark, both existing and new.
Conclusion
In conclusion I think this is a good idea that got rushed. It should have been passed through a couple of more hoops before being launched to get the right feedback. The main things that I think Microsoft should change before rolling this out that, from my perspective, still give the same effect, are:
Aggregate all API-Calls that are counted to a per instance level. It will make it easier to manage, stop the breaking change and make it easier to understand.
Enable admins to add a per-use, after the fact, payment option, (like Azure) for any additional API-calls.
If this is going to be useful or not also is very dependent on the fact that we can reallocate a lot of the API-calls from users to the integration users. For instance, I have a B2C customer with 1M+ API calls per 24/h and if it will not be possible to take the sum of hundreds of users and allocate those to the application users we are using, then this will be a very hurtful change.
In the meantime, I do recommend that you keep a close eye to what is going on within this area as it will most likely affect you if you are running any application accounts, which you probably are, like Dynamics Portal, Forms Pro, Voice of the Customer and many more. If you go into the list of users and change view to “Application users” (or whatever it might be called in your language) you will see the list. I think Micrsoft will make some changes, or some announcements to this before October 1. Let’s see what.
Update 2019-09-04
There has been some chatter going around regarding this and do note the comments below which include interesting links and good thoughts. There are some additional points that need to be pointed out. Instead of changing the original article I will continue to add updates like these.
Normal UI usage will count
Initially I did not think that normal UI usage would count towards the API request calls. With “normal” in this case, as an old Dynamics 365/CRM geek, I of course mean a model driven App, but the same also goes for canvas Apps or actually any use of the CDS, what so ever. What this will mean when a user runs out of API requests, will be interesting to see. How many requests are used when the application is used, of course depends a lot on what you do. If you switch on F12 in Chrome you can check the network traffic and see for yourself.
Batching will be your friend
Using batching will from now on not only be a general best practice but also make you save money. If you use tools like Kingswaysoft this is easy to configure, to make sure that you have large batches when for instance doing CUD calls. When writing code directly, you will need to understand how to do this directly. Note that sometimes this will require entire rewrites of the code. I have seen programs off the shore of Orion that you wouldn’t believe with tons of single queries instead of one single call. Most often written by devs who have no or very little experience of writing code towards Dynamics 365/CDS.
Unclear if possible to move API-calls
As several people here and on Twitter have commented, it is probably incorrect to interpret that API:s can be moved from normal users to application users and non-interactive users. This will cause major headaches for some customers which will be struck with lots of additonal costs. Costs that are not very welcome as the per GB cost recently increased 800% hurting especially the larger customers with massive integrations and extensive use of the system. I do, for instance, have a customer that exceeds 1M requests per day 365 days a year. This would require them to buy over 100 addon 10k API requests SKU:s, despite the fact that their 500 users gives them a total of over 5M requests per day, something they will not be using through the UI unless someone is drinking very large amounts of coffee. – NEW Update: This was an incorrect interpretation. You cannot reallocate API calls from normal users.
The price is here
The price for the 10k/24h SKU will be $50/month. This means that for a customer like mine having major integrations causing around 1M API-calls per day, this would cost an additional per month $5 000 or yearly $60 000. I sincerely hope they will relax the throttling to make it worth it. If/when they do, I will read my Macciavelli again.
Update 2019-09-05
First of all I will write a new blog article on this, when the dust settles and we know what is going on. Currently there are quite a lot of unknowns and I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsoft announced a thing or two soon. I have been told that the FAQ will be updated in a couple of days.
Batching – again
There were some discussions on if batching actually were going to be useful in this case or not. I have now gotten confirmed that a batched request will be considered as one (1) call. This is both for batched Creates/Updates/Deletes and Queries of multiple records (that would be very strange if it wasn’t one record, but I had to ask).
Data Export Service etc.
Data Export Service and other services that run under the system account will not count towards the API request. This is good news as this opens up for many users to be able to use this method to offload the API:s for reads.
What is the competition up to
I checked to see how SFDC are handling this and as far as I can see they have a similar setup as can be read here:
I am no expert on their licensing model, but I think it is good to know that this isn’t just a PowerPlatform thing. However, there are some distinct differences:
The API calls are not counted for normal browser/client usage. Only “real” API calls.
They have real enforcement blocking an entire instance/org if they overshoot
All API:s per user license are summed up to the org level
Microsoft Addon apps will include request
If you buy Dynamics Portals, this will include some additional licenses. The same goes for Forms Pro. Hence there should be some default API request assignment to those application users that are installed. I do wonder if it would be financially beneficial to piggyback on those application users? There is also no current method for ISV:s to bundle API-requests into their product if they install an application user upon installation.
CSP / Distributor silence
We have still heard nothing of the 10k addon SKU from any distrubutor, EA or CSP. It will be interesting to see if it will reach the entire distribution chain by October 1 when customers will start being notified that they are in violation (new customers).
Recent Comments