True, true. If it comes down to it, you end up coding your own and sticking with it.
WP.com uses the "4096" method, as I lovingly refer to it, for their stuff.
That's 4096 total different databases, not servers. I think he said they currently have about 15 database servers total, some master, some slave, some for just reads.
I "think" he said that one of those were strictly for "their stuff", like here, wp.org, automattic, etc.
All of which uses a hash of the blog id, and then using the first 3 characters from that (which is 4096 possibilities).
Initially, you could just pop your db onto it's own box, and then go from there as your needs dictate.
Eventually, you'll have to do something beyond that probably, but at least initially splitting it into a db server and a web server should buy you some time.
As for splitting it beyond that, it's anyones guess.
For me, I'll need to pick a method and stick to it. This will depend on the number of blogs I'm expecting. Most likely it will be something based on a hash, but I'll probably go with the first 2 characters of the blog_id hash instead of 3.
To do a hash thing, you'd have to sit down and figure out all the possible combinations, then translate those into database names (and locations if needbe). Might be "easier" to just use the blog id, figure out then max number of sites you want in that db, and then do something with that.
Like: if blog_id < 1000 : use db alpha1.
Or something like that. Where "1000" is the number of blogs you want in each db. Then based on your # of accounts, create X number of db's, plus a few extra for growth.
Of course you'd have to keep track of your id usage, and then if a damn spammer gets through and registers 300 blogs it would hurt. Which would be the only real downside to this approach. Due to cancellations, spammers, etc, you wouldn't be effectively using all your db's.
plus you'd probably want to keep all the stuff for site_1 in it's own db, which means you're going to need 2 mysql connections every time. Not that it's a big deal.
Either way, as I mentioned, splitting the web and db stuff onto separate boxes should buy you some time. At least some time to plan and figure out what you want to do to scale. By then, if there isn't multiple db support "officially" in MU, you'll have a plan ready for action. Once you implement it though, you're probably "stuck" with it, and with making the edits necessary to make it work. Could be that your best option is including your own "config" file, to put in the correct values to the db class. Might at least make upgrading the core stuff a little easier.