What's wrong with this idea?
To protect a bunch of local VMs with Azure Backup Server, how about protecting one instance of a Hyper-V host and the VM files in the host file system rather than each VM as a separate protected instance?
Given Azure Backup's pricing model of protected instance + storage and bandwidth, it seems I could reduce the number of protected instances this way, while still paying the same for storage and bandwidth.
Sample numbers: My typical Azure cloud backup bill of $800/mo includes about about 20 protected VM instances whose files could be backed up from the host instance instead. At $10 / instance / month, it seems I could save $200/mo or 25%. The storage and bandwidth charges shouldn't increase. I'd still be able to recover a whole VM (by restoring the vm files from the host backup) or specific files within the VMs virtual disks (by restoring the whole VM file, mounting it and rummaging around within it).
I don't know whether there is any file consistency problem specific to VM files captured on the host, but I can run the experiment.
Has anyone tried this approach? Is it known to work, or to not work?