I am pretty particular about where I store virtual machine files. I STRONGLY DISLIKE the default storage paths of Hyper-V. I use 3 options:
- Local storage: Virtual hard disks and virtual machine files go into D:Virtual Machines<VM Name>
- CSV: Virtual hard disks and virtual machine files go into C:ClusterStorage<CSV Mount Name><VM Name>
- SMB 3.0: Virtual hard disks and virtual machine files go into \<SMB 3.0 Server Name><Share Name><VM Name>
Each VM gets its own folder. All files for that VM, including virtual hard disks, go into that folder. I NEVER use the default VM file locations on the C: of the management OS. Using those locations is STUPID. And if you cannot see why … please put down the mouse and hand in your resignation now.
Microsoft has published a KB article to reinforce the fact that there are supported file share path formats. The wording is a bit iffy – see my above examples to see what is supported. Long story short: Place the VM files into a dedicated subfolder for that VM.
I’m looking forward to when they finally fix it so Storage Migrations delete the VM folder from the source when the Migration is complete. It’s annoying to see those empty folders left behind.
Agreed.
Is there any reason to keep the virtual machine files in a different storage location than the Virtual hard disks?
Some might consider placing virtual hard disks onto different RAID types to make the most of space versus performance. Personally, I find that challenging in terms of management and automation.
But – for SMBv3 – Should each Virtual Host have it’s own Share?
The examples all show seperate Shares. But – no guidance.
It would seem to be more sensible to have the one share so moving VM’s doesn’t mean moving storage.
A very good question, Paul. I think it’s an “it depends on your situation” … situation. For non-clustered hosts, I would certainly have just a one or a few shares. For a cluster, I am undecided. A big variable is the scale of the environment. I have not seen any best practices published on this.