Channel Limit (Increase beyond 200 limit)
We have run into a situation on a team, let's call it "Vendors" where we post data on vendors that we use. We set up a channel for each vendor but have "reached the limit" on the number of channels in a team. Is this something that can be controlled through an admin panel or is there another way to increase/remove the limit.
As mentioned in the prior status, the channel limit was raised from 100 to 200.
In the near future a retention limit will be set so you can still go back and reinstate a channel you had deleted. Once the retention period has expired then the channel will get a hard delete which will free up the space and no longer count toward the 200 channel limit.
This will help with some of the issues you have voiced in the comments below.
But I understand many of you wish the limit to be further increased. I will continue to provide your votes and comments to the feature team.
Regarding more private channel support, upvote this UserVoice:
Please increase the number of private channels. 30 is a very limiting number. Ideally, there should be no limit on any channels or Teams if you want large enterprises to embrace this tool.
Michael Franke commented
It seems that Microsoft is not capable of increasing the limit further. This post is older than 3 years and the problem is still there.
The best solution would be no limit, otherwise teams with all its benefits is useless for many users.
Many businesses will quickly go past the 200 project limit. While I can see that from a usability perspective, having a huge number of channels may make it harder to navigate, there should at least be the option to archive an unlimited number of channels. That way the number of active channels could be limited to 200 (preferably more) and archived channels (e.g. for defunct projects) could be made active only when there is new activity.
Larry Cole commented
200 channels is not nearly enough. We use a channel for each of our projects to keep things organized. 2,000 channels would be a good target.
Jo Hulbert commented
We need the ability to set-up more than 30 private channels - please!!! 30 doesn't even allow us to have a channel for each of our local teams when we are situated in over 50 countries.
Studer Roland commented
We need more than 1500 channels possible in a teams because our communication with clients goes over these channels.
Elaina Ozrovitz commented
We need unlimited channels because we are a large university that is seeking to use this product for interview subject tracking where we will need to have one channel for each interview subject across the University so that could be hundreds if not thousands of interview subjects ultimately including alumni
Emre TOPTANCI commented
I think this limit should be even higher, limitless if possible. Just like Slack.
Each channel is part of organizational memory, it keeps what people said over a particular subject. Doing this in a single channel for the project does not help. It is terrible for traceability.
We would very much like to employ a use case where a separate channel can be created (on demand) for any task in a project so the channel link can be put on the task and stored indefinitely. This way you create a channel just for the task and invite only the people related to that task. What they say and discuss about it is stored linked to that task as part of organizational memory. You might have hundreds of channels for a project (besides your main project channel).
Rob Condon commented
We want to create a similar file/folder structure in Teams and Sharepoint, therefore need to setup our clients as channels and not Teams. We have 350+ clients so need this increased to prevent breaking down our Teams into A-M / N-Z
We have an internal consulting team and we'd like to use a channel per project - we are going to hit the limit. Ability to archive channels and free up space would be helpful but believe it should be 'unlimited'
Michael Franke commented
We are also looking for the right Setup in TEAMs and the best solution for us would be a sperate Channel for each Customer. So 200 + 30 private channels is both to small.
For us (and anyone else moving from Slack) this is a crippling limitation. Our way of working with development tasks or business requirements is to create a channel for the requirement, which then stays open during the development but is closed/deleted/archived once the task is fully completed. This process has worked very well in Slack, but now we are severely limited by Teams' hard limits.
HARITHA SAMA commented
200 is too small.
Dan Hogsed commented
Just started our Teams migration and already have everyone creating channels under a single Team to keep order to the chaos. Really hope this gets resolved before we hit the ceiling!
Hi Teams, I would like to see more than 200 channels, potentially 5,000 per team.. Thank you!
Sontana Intraweat commented
Please increase the channel limit to at least a 5,000 per team. The way we work, we create a channel per each project. 200 channel limit per Team is not ideal at all. Thank you for your hard work! :)
We want to use a flow that creates a channel based on task requests that we receive through power apps. We would need at least 2'000 channels.
Paul kourie commented
What might be a quick work around is you can create up to 250 teams. That means each team can have 200 channels. It's clunky though for tracking purposes. you can the same team on the new team and when you use up 200 channels you simply start going to the other team you created to continue.
But MS needs to step up here. We are all saying we want to use teams and it's powerapps but limiting the number of channels is going to deter many people form using the platform to it's fullest capabilities.
MS this should be a no brainer for you when it comes to capturing business from the project management software industry..
Any details on why the 200 Channels Limit can't be solved? We are nunning a very nice project management tool using Powerapps and Teams. We can auto create channels for each project but have in the range of 1000 projects a year. Any idea what a workaround could look like?