We've got a Hyper-V server set up, and the layout of the files is inconsistent because it was set up by several people. Here are the two different "templates" that were used:
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\MACHINE_NAME_1\Virtual Hard Disks\MACHINE_NAME_1.vhdx D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\MACHINE_NAME_1\Virtual Machines\GUID_1 D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\MACHINE_NAME_1\Virtual Machines\GUID_1.xml D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\MACHINE_NAME_2\Virtual Hard Disks\MACHINE_NAME_2.vhdx D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\MACHINE_NAME_2\Virtual Machines\GUID_2 D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\MACHINE_NAME_2\Virtual Machines\GUID_2.xml
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\MACHINE_NAME_1.vhdx D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\MACHINE_NAME_2.vhdx D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\GUID_1 D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\GUID_1.xml D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\GUID_2 D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\GUID_2.xml
The argument made FOR Template 1, was that when you do an export of a VM the export creates a folder with the machine name, puts separate folders for the disks and vm. You can then simply point to the machine directory when you run an import.
The argument AGAINST this template style is that it doesn't make sense for there to be a directory called Virtual Machines if there is only one file. The other argument against is that it appears that that Hyper-V server itself seems to expect that all hard disks are in one folder, and all the Virtual Machines are in a different folder. i.e. it doesn't create separate folders for each VM (execept for the ones nameed by GUID in the Virtual Machines directory)
The argument FOR Template 2 is that it seems like that is what Hyper-V expects the layout to be.
The argument AGAINST Template 2, is that you can't tell which Virtual Machine files are associated with a specific machine unless you look inside the xml files.
I'd love to hear about any pitfalls to either layout.