You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What concept do you need more clarity on?
MS is deprecating the P1 License that allowed for "full" Fabric features and "free fabric viewers" for things with a Capacity. F SKUs don't have all the features till you get an F64 to make feature the same as a P1. Many have said MS Documentation on this is still confusing as far what you get for a lower F SKU. There is also confusion on dedicated vs Pay As you Go
Several of us thought the Fabric Notes may be a good option for improve and clarify things.
I would also like to see more clarification and summarization of what Fabric features require F64 or higher and what Fabric features require always on vs pay as you go.
Bump. The licensing aspects are not as clear in the docs, which leads to redundant questions during budget meetings. I get the same questions and arguments for continuing our P1 subscriptions. It would be great to have a simple page that explains pay as you go vs reserverd, allocating max CUs to different workspaces, internal egress/ingress costs (solely among fabric services on same tenant), and storage costs.
What concept do you need more clarity on?
MS is deprecating the P1 License that allowed for "full" Fabric features and "free fabric viewers" for things with a Capacity. F SKUs don't have all the features till you get an F64 to make feature the same as a P1. Many have said MS Documentation on this is still confusing as far what you get for a lower F SKU. There is also confusion on dedicated vs Pay As you Go
Several of us thought the Fabric Notes may be a good option for improve and clarify things.
Any reference explaining that concept
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric/enterprise/licenses
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/microsoft-fabric/
Have you checked the list of issues to see if there is a similar suggestion?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: