For a VM I have, here's my .VBK sizes. All backups are using Best compression.
C: drive only: 3.7 gigabytes.
D: drive only: 32 gigabytes.
C and D drive combined: 27 gigabytes.
Huh? I can imagine a situation where C and D combined are maybe a little bigger than the largest drive. But smaller?
My hunch is that there's some nice optimization or deduplication that happens only when working with more than one disk. This deduplication can take advantage of say, the same blocks being stored multiple times even on a single disk. This probably never gets executed when doing a single disk backup, so the single disk backups wind up being larger than they need to be. (That's just my hunch as a software engineer.) There's no reason you can't do this for a single disk backup. It seems really weird that in a situation like this, it would be more efficient for me to store extra data along with the D drive in order to get a smaller backup file of the D drive.

(Now that I think about it, I bet I could test my theory out by cloning disks and making backups with the cloned disks + original vs. just the original by itself. Maybe I'll do that if I don't hear anything.)
Any ideas? We like storing our backups on a disk-by-disk basis, even though it means no deduplication (between disks) because it makes it easier to work with the backup files when shuffling them around our different datacenters.
- Alex