As long as SQL and Sage are on the same VM, you're fine.  Just don't move only the data.

Hi Jay. Thanks for getting back to me quickly.

To be clear, what we're looking to do is eliminate MS SQL server and use Azure's hosted SQL service. So, the database would be in that and the only VM would be for Sage 300 itself. I've seen some discussions of this, including one other thread that indicates this might be possible, but I wanted to get more opinions on it. Do you have any knowledge of whether this is doable?

Thanks!

If you have less than 20 users, you should put them on the same server.  If you split them, make sure the VMs are on the same physical host.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm wondering is if using Azure's hosted SQL (which is a managed service that doesn't have its own VM) is possible here as our client is looking to eliminate MS SQL server entirely. If they move to the cloud, they will have to purchase a very expensive, new MS SQL Server license and if they can avoid that by hosting their databases with Azure directly, it will save them a small fortune. Presently, Sage 300 is the only product of their line of business tools that we aren't sure supports this scenario.

I understand what you're saying, but what I'm wondering is if using Azure's hosted SQL (which is a managed service that doesn't have its own VM) is possible here as our client is looking to eliminate MS SQL server entirely. If they move to the cloud, they will have to purchase a very expensive, new MS SQL Server license and if they can avoid that by hosting their databases with Azure directly, it will save them a small fortune. Presently, Sage 300 is the only product of their line of business tools that we aren't sure supports this scenario.

You have a basic misunderstanding.  Hosted Sql is still MSSQL. 

I understand that, but you're discussing VMs. When you're using Hosted SQL, you don't manage a VM. You create a database that Azure fully manages, point your product to it and pay for usage. There can be subtle difference in database functionality and compatibility between the hosted offering and a "real" MS SQL server, so what I'm trying to figure out is if Sage 300 is compatible with this offering.

No, you still don't get it.  Hosted SQL is still MSSQL.  

OK...so it should in theory work then is what you're saying? You previously said to ensure it was best to keep it either on the same VM or on the same host, depending on the user count. As you don't manage an actual VM with Hosted SQL, would that cause potential issues?

We have many small to medium clients running on a single VM with Sage and MSSQL.  Azure, AWS, NetAtWork, they're all variations.  But if you think you can still run Sage with Sage programs on your local server with Sage data in the Azure cloud, forget it.

That's not the plan. We're moving all of the client's on-prem servers to Azure. So, they will have a Sage 300 VM in Azure and the database would be there too. Our hope was just to put it in Hosted SQL so we can eliminate the need for a separate Azure VM specifically to host the unmanaged version of MS SQL Server.

I think Azure SQL is different than SQL Hosted on Azure. Think of Azure SQL as SQL As A Service.

Sage does not support nor have they tested Azure SQL. I haven't tried it myself either.

does Sage know what features of SQL they use or support?