name: tenancy-models description: Use when choosing multi-tenant architecture patterns. Covers Pool (shared), Silo (isolated), and Bridge (hybrid) models with decision frameworks for isolation, cost, and scale trade-offs. allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Task
Multi-Tenancy Models
Architecture patterns for deploying multi-tenant SaaS applications, from fully shared to fully isolated.
When to Use This Skill
- Designing a new SaaS application
- Choosing between shared and dedicated infrastructure
- Evaluating isolation vs cost trade-offs
- Planning tenant tiering strategy
- Migrating from single-tenant to multi-tenant
Core Concept
Multi-tenancy spectrum:
Fully Shared (Pool) Hybrid (Bridge) Fully Isolated (Silo)
◄──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────►
Low Cost High Cost
Low Isolation High Isolation
High Density Low Density
Noisy Neighbor Risk No Interference
The Three Models
Pool Model (Shared Everything)
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Application Layer │
│ All tenants share compute, storage, database │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Database │
│ ┌─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┐ │
│ │ T1 │ T2 │ T3 │ T4 │ T5 │ T6 │ T7 │ ... │ │
│ └─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┘ │
│ (Row-Level Security separates data) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Characteristics:
- Single database, shared schema
- Row-level security for isolation
- All tenants share compute resources
- Lowest cost per tenant
- Highest tenant density (millions possible)
Best For:
- B2C SaaS with many small tenants
- Startup MVP (minimize infrastructure)
- Cost-sensitive markets
- Low compliance requirements
Challenges:
- Noisy neighbor problems
- Single point of failure
- Complex schema migrations
- Limited customization per tenant
Silo Model (Fully Isolated)
┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐
│ Tenant A │ │ Tenant B │ │ Tenant C │
│ ┌────────────┐ │ │ ┌────────────┐ │ │ ┌────────────┐ │
│ │ App │ │ │ │ App │ │ │ │ App │ │
│ ├────────────┤ │ │ ├────────────┤ │ │ ├────────────┤ │
│ │ Database │ │ │ │ Database │ │ │ │ Database │ │
│ └────────────┘ │ │ └────────────┘ │ │ └────────────┘ │
└──────────────────┘ └──────────────────┘ └──────────────────┘
Characteristics:
- Dedicated resources per tenant
- Complete data isolation
- Independent scaling
- Independent maintenance windows
- Highest cost per tenant
Best For:
- Enterprise B2B with strict compliance
- Regulated industries (healthcare, finance)
- Tenants requiring custom SLAs
- Data sovereignty requirements
- High-value customers justifying cost
Challenges:
- High infrastructure cost
- Operational complexity at scale
- Tenant onboarding latency
- Resource underutilization
Bridge Model (Hybrid)
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Shared Services │
│ (Authentication, Billing, Monitoring, Configuration) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
│ │
┌───────────┴───────────┐ ┌───────┴───────┐
│ Pooled Tier │ │ Premium Tier │
│ ┌────┬────┬────┐ │ │ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ T1 │ T2 │ T3 │ │ │ │ Tenant │ │
│ └────┴────┴────┘ │ │ │ (Silo) │ │
│ (Shared Database) │ │ └─────────┘ │
└───────────────────────┘ └───────────────┘
Characteristics:
- Shared control plane
- Mix of pool and silo at data plane
- Tenant tiering (Standard = Pool, Premium = Silo)
- Gradual migration path from pool to silo
Best For:
- Growth-stage SaaS with diverse customer base
- Companies offering standard and enterprise tiers
- Migration from pool to silo
- Balancing cost with enterprise requirements
Decision Framework
Quick Decision Tree
Start
│
┌───────────┴───────────┐
│ Strict compliance │
│ requirements? │
└───────────┬───────────┘
Yes ──┤──── No
│ │
┌────▼────┐ │
│ SILO │ │
└─────────┘ │
┌─────▼─────┐
│ >10,000 │
│ tenants? │
└─────┬─────┘
Yes ────┤──── No
│ │
┌────▼────┐ ┌────▼────┐
│ POOL │ │ BRIDGE │
└─────────┘ └─────────┘
Weighted Decision Matrix
| Factor | Weight | Pool Score | Silo Score | Bridge Score | | ------ | ------ | ---------- | ---------- | ------------ | | Cost Efficiency | 25% | 5 | 1 | 3 | | Tenant Isolation | 20% | 2 | 5 | 4 | | Scalability | 20% | 5 | 3 | 4 | | Operational Simplicity | 15% | 4 | 2 | 3 | | Customization | 10% | 2 | 5 | 4 | | Compliance Fit | 10% | 2 | 5 | 4 |
Model Comparison
| Aspect | Pool | Silo | Bridge | | ------ | ---- | ---- | ------ | | Scale | 1-1,000,000+ | 1-1,000s | 1-100,000s | | Cost per Tenant | Lowest | Highest | Variable | | Isolation | Low (logical) | Complete | Tiered | | Noisy Neighbor Risk | High | None | Varies by tier | | Onboarding Speed | Instant | Minutes-Hours | Varies by tier | | Schema Customization | None | Full | Limited/Full | | Compliance | Shared controls | Dedicated | Hybrid | | Operational Complexity | Low | High at scale | Medium |
Implementation Patterns
Pool Model Implementation
Key Components:
1. Tenant Resolver Middleware
- Extract tenant from subdomain, header, or JWT claim
- Set tenant context for request
2. Row-Level Security
- Database-level isolation (SQL Server RLS, PostgreSQL RLS)
- All queries filtered by tenant_id
3. Shared Connection Pool
- Single connection string
- Tenant context passed per-request
4. Global Query Filters (EF Core)
- Automatic tenant filtering on all entities
See database-isolation skill for implementation details.
Silo Model Implementation
Key Components:
1. Tenant Routing
- DNS-based (tenant.app.com)
- API Gateway routing by tenant identifier
2. Dedicated Infrastructure
- Database per tenant
- Optionally dedicated compute
3. Tenant Catalog
- Central registry of tenant configurations
- Connection strings, feature flags, customizations
4. Infrastructure as Code
- Automated provisioning (Terraform, Bicep)
- Template-based tenant environments
See tenant-provisioning skill for implementation details.
Bridge Model Implementation
Key Components:
1. Tiered Tenant Classification
- Standard tier → Pool
- Premium tier → Silo
2. Unified Control Plane
- Single admin portal
- Central configuration management
- Aggregated monitoring
3. Data Plane Routing
- Route to pool or silo based on tier
- Seamless upgrade path (pool → silo)
4. Migration Support
- Data export from pool
- Import to dedicated resources
- Zero-downtime migration
Cloud Provider Considerations
Azure
| Model | Services | | ----- | -------- | | Pool | Azure SQL with RLS, Elastic Pools | | Silo | SQL Database per tenant, Cosmos DB account per tenant | | Bridge | Mix of above, Azure Front Door for routing |
AWS
| Model | Services | | ----- | -------- | | Pool | RDS PostgreSQL with RLS, DynamoDB with partition key | | Silo | RDS per tenant, isolated VPCs | | Bridge | Mix of above, API Gateway for routing |
Cosmos DB Specific
| Isolation Level | Pattern | Cost | Isolation | | --------------- | ------- | ---- | --------- | | Partition key per tenant | Shared container | Lowest | Logical | | Container per tenant | Shared database | Medium | Container RBAC | | Database per tenant | Shared account | Higher | Database RBAC | | Account per tenant | Dedicated account | Highest | Complete |
Evolution Path
Startup to Enterprise
Phase 1: MVP (Pool)
└── Single database, RLS
└── Minimize costs
└── Validate product-market fit
Phase 2: Growth (Bridge)
└── Introduce premium tier (Silo)
└── Keep standard tier (Pool)
└── First enterprise customers
Phase 3: Scale (Optimized Bridge)
└── Cell-based architecture
└── Regional deployment
└── Per-tenant SLA options
Migration Triggers
Move from Pool → Bridge when:
- First enterprise customer requires isolation
- Compliance requirements emerge
- Noisy neighbor problems occur
Move from Bridge → More Silo when:
- Premium revenue justifies infrastructure
- Enterprise segment grows
- Per-tenant customization demand increases
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Solution | | ------------ | ------- | -------- | | Over-isolation early | High cost, slow development | Start with pool, migrate later | | No tenant context | Data leakage risk | Always validate tenant context | | Shared secrets | Cross-tenant access | Tenant-scoped encryption keys | | Global caching | Cache pollution | Tenant-prefixed cache keys | | Synchronous provisioning | Slow onboarding | Async provisioning with status |
Best Practices
1. Tenant Context is Sacred
- Validate on every request
- Never assume tenant from client input
- Log tenant ID with every operation
2. Defense in Depth
- Application-level filtering
- Database-level RLS
- Network-level isolation (for silo)
3. Observability per Tenant
- Metrics tagged by tenant
- Per-tenant dashboards
- Alerting thresholds per tier
4. Cost Attribution
- Track resource usage per tenant
- Enable chargebacks for enterprise
- Monitor for cost anomalies
5. Test Isolation
- Automated cross-tenant access tests
- Penetration testing for isolation
- Chaos testing for noisy neighbor
Related Skills
database-isolation- Implementation patterns for data isolationtenant-context-propagation- Context resolution in microservicesnoisy-neighbor-prevention- Resource isolation techniquestenant-provisioning- Automated tenant onboarding
References
- Load
references/pool-model.mdfor detailed Pool implementation - Load
references/silo-model.mdfor detailed Silo implementation - Load
references/bridge-model.mdfor detailed Bridge implementation - AWS Well-Architected SaaS Lens: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/wellarchitected/latest/saas-lens/
- Azure Multi-tenant patterns: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/multitenant/
Last Updated: 2025-12-26
Expert Next.js App Router
Developpement
Un skill qui transforme Claude en expert Next.js App Router.
Générateur de README
Developpement
Crée des README.md professionnels et complets pour vos projets.
Rédacteur de Documentation API
Developpement
Génère de la documentation API complète au format OpenAPI/Swagger.