I no longer work at Microsoft, so please don't bother leaving a comment here or trying to contact me through my MSDN blog.
You can find my new blog at http://www.technologytoolbox.com/blog/jjameson. My new site also provides copies of all posts from my MSDN blog.
In the United States, "CDL" typically refers to a Commercial Driver's License -- but since I don't drive trucks for a living, I use the acronym for something entirely different. To me, these three letters correspond to the minimum number of drives I like to see on any server running SharePoint Server 2010 -- or its predecessor, Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007.
In other words, I think all SharePoint servers -- yes, even your development VMs -- should have a C: drive, a D: drive, and an L: drive.
In general, the C: drive is used for operating system files, program files, the paging file, and the IIS logs. The D: drive (which I typically label "Data01") and L: drive ("Log01") are used differently depending on the environment.
In a Production environment, the D: drive is used for the search index files (and possibly the BlobCache too, depending on your Search load) and the L: drive is used for the SharePoint ULS logs.
You certainly don't have to separate the search index files and ULS logs onto separate disks. If you do, then your SharePoint servers should be able to scale "massively" (provided you have sufficient CPU and memory). If you don't isolate the search index files and ULS logs, then personally I wouldn't use "massive" to describe the scalability of your SharePoint architecture, because I believe you are likely to bottleneck on disk I/O on the front-end Web/query servers long before you max out today's blazingly fast, mulit-core processors and high-capacity DIMMs.
On development VMs, I create separate VHDs for the D: and L: drives for several reasons:
When I used to have ICEMAN configured with a single logical drive (four physical drives in a RAID 10 array), I would occasionally receive alerts from Operations Manager regarding high disk latency. Since splitting those same physical drives into two RAID 1 arrays, I haven't received any more disk latency alerts.