When managing Hyper-V environments, I've observed two predominant file organization patterns that administrators tend to use:

// Template 1 - Per-VM Directory Structure
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\{VM_NAME}\Virtual Hard Disks\{VM_NAME}.vhdx
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\{VM_NAME}\Virtual Machines\{GUID}
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\{VM_NAME}\Virtual Machines\{GUID}.xml

// Template 2 - Consolidated Structure  
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\{VM_NAME}.vhdx
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\{GUID}
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\{GUID}.xml

Template 1 Advantages:

• Natural alignment with Hyper-V's export/import behavior (exports create similarly structured folders)
• Simpler disaster recovery - entire VM components exist in one logical container
• Easier manual management through Windows Explorer

Template 1 Disadvantages:

• Potential performance impact when scanning many nested directories
• Breaks Hyper-V's default expectation of consolidated VHDX locations
• Redundant "Virtual Machines" subfolder when containing single files

Template 2 Advantages:

• Matches Hyper-V's default configuration patterns
• Better for large-scale deployments with hundreds of VMs
• Simpler PowerShell automation (easier wildcard operations)

Based on production experience, I recommend this modified structure:

D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\Configs\{GUID}
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\Configs\{GUID}.xml
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\{VM_NAME}\{VM_NAME}.vhdx
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\{VM_NAME}\Snapshots\
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\{VM_NAME}\Checkpoints\

This gives you the benefits of both approaches while addressing their limitations.

For the hybrid structure, here are useful maintenance scripts:

# Find all VHDX files with their associated VM names
Get-VM | Select-Object Name, @{n="VHDPath";e={$_.HardDrives.Path}} |
Format-Table -AutoSize

# Move VM storage to new location (example)
$vm = Get-VM "SQL-SERVER-01"
Move-VMStorage -VM $vm -DestinationStoragePath "D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\$($vm.Name)"

When dealing with high-I/O workloads:

• Place VHDX files on separate physical disks from the configuration files
• For CSV environments, use dedicated LUNs for VM configurations
• Consider NTFS allocation unit size (64KB recommended for VHDX containers)

The hybrid structure simplifies backup scripting:

# Backup entire VM structure
$backupRoot = "\\nas\hyperv_backups"
Get-VM | ForEach-Object {
    $vmDir = "$backupRoot\$($_.Name)_$(Get-Date -Format yyyyMMdd)"
    New-Item -ItemType Directory -Path $vmDir
    Copy-Item $_.HardDrives.Path -Destination "$vmDir\Disks\"
    Export-VM -Name $_.Name -Path "$vmDir\Config\" -CaptureLiveState
}

---

After working with multiple Hyper-V deployments, I've observed that VM storage organization often becomes inconsistent when multiple administrators work on the same host. The two predominant patterns I've encountered are fundamentally different in their approach to storing virtual machine components.

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

Pros:

• Natural alignment with export/import operations (exports create similar directory structures)
• All VM components are logically grouped together
• Simpler backup targeting at the machine level

Cons:

• Breaks Hyper-V's default expectation of centralized VHDX storage
• Potential performance impact when scanning multiple nested directories
• Wastes space with redundant "Virtual Machines" folders containing single files

D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Hard Disks\MACHINE_NAME_1.vhdx
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\GUID_1
D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\GUID_1.xml

Pros:

• Matches Hyper-V's default behavior for new VMs
• Simpler path management for scripts and automation
• Easier to implement storage quotas at the VHDX level

Cons:

• Requires additional metadata to map VMs to their components
• Export/import operations require more manual intervention
• Less intuitive for manual administration

For enterprise environments, I recommend a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of both templates:

D:\Hyper-V\VMs\MACHINE_NAME_1\config\ (contains VM XML and state files)
D:\Hyper-V\VMs\MACHINE_NAME_1\disks\ (contains all VHDX files)
D:\Hyper-V\VMs\MACHINE_NAME_1\snapshots\ (optional for checkpoint files)

This structure maintains logical grouping while avoiding the nested "Virtual Machines" folder redundancy. Here's a PowerShell script to migrate existing VMs to this structure:

# PowerShell migration script
$vmList = Get-VM

foreach ($vm in $vmList) {
    $newPath = "D:\Hyper-V\VMs\$($vm.Name)"
    
    # Create directory structure
    New-Item -Path "$newPath\config" -ItemType Directory -Force
    New-Item -Path "$newPath\disks" -ItemType Directory -Force
    
    # Move VHDX files
    $vm | Get-VMHardDiskDrive | ForEach-Object {
        $vhdPath = $_.Path
        $newVhdPath = "$newPath\disks\" + (Split-Path $vhdPath -Leaf)
        Move-Item $vhdPath $newVhdPath -Force
        Set-VMHardDiskDrive -VMHardDiskDrive $_ -Path $newVhdPath
    }
    
    # Move configuration files
    $vmConfig = Get-ChildItem "D:\Hyper-V\Virtual Machines\" -Filter "$($vm.Id)*"
    $vmConfig | Move-Item -Destination "$newPath\config\" -Force
}

When implementing your file structure, consider:

• Place high-IOPS VMs on separate physical disks when possible
• Use symbolic links if you need to maintain backward compatibility
• For large deployments, consider splitting VMs across multiple volumes based on workload type

Here's a sample Ansible playbook to enforce consistent naming:

- name: Ensure Hyper-V directory structure
  hosts: hyperv_servers
  tasks:
    - name: Create base directories
      win_file:
        path: "D:\\Hyper-V\\VMs\\{{ item }}\\{{ subdir }}"
        state: directory
      loop:
        - "web-servers"
        - "db-servers"
        - "app-servers"
      loop_control:
        loop_var: item
      vars:
        subdirs: ["config", "disks", "snapshots"]
        subdir: "{{ item }}"