While researching good practice for partitioning (the host or VM) , the consensus (at least on spiceworks) seems to be to keep it simple and use a single partition. I like simple.
The advice given is that if you have a compelling reason to use multiple partitions, then do so. On "basic" Windows server systems the compelling reasons most mentioned are:
1. Prevent the system drive from running out of space.
2. Allow granular control over volume (drive) specific functionality such as Shadow Copies.
However, elsewhere as well as in the following thread I've seen mention of not only partitioning VMs but creating a separate VHD for each partition in the VM. (e.g., a partition and VHD for the OS, a partition and VHD for the data).
***
"MultiverseIT Oct 11, 2013 at 12:15 AM
Virtualize - you should always virtualize. Then you put data on one VHDx and the OS on another. Allows EASILY transferring it to other systems. I'm very surprised at the number of people saying one partition. In almost every other forum and with most consultants I work with, OS is ALWAYS a separate partition. If nothing else, it's a hard limit that prevents one side from blowing up the other."
http:/
***
Two questions:
1.) If you have a file server and are using Shadow Copy, would it really matter that everything is on a single partition and you are also shadow copying the hell out of your OS and Application files?
2.) Is the VM partitioning and VHD scheme described by MultiverseIT common for "basic" setups?