Azure Local

This series advocates for on-premises Hyper-V with three-tier SAN architecture. But intellectual honesty , and the credibility of everything we’ve written , demands that we evaluate every option fairly. Storage Spaces Direct and Azure Local have legitimate use cases. Three-tier isn’t always the right answer.

The cost lens matters, though. For many organizations leaving VMware, the decision is not just about technical elegance. It is about whether Azure Local’s host fee and potential hardware refresh are justified, or whether reusing existing compute and existing SAN is the smarter move for the workloads they actually run.

I’m in the middle of writing The Hyper-V Renaissance, an 18-part series making the case for traditional Hyper-V with Windows Server 2025 as a serious virtualization platform. It’s been consuming most of my writing time, and I’ve been heads-down on TCO comparisons, cluster builds, and PowerShell automation.

But sometimes you stumble across something that deserves its own post, and you have to step away from the main project for a minute.

From My Perspective as a Microsoft Azure Hybrid MVP – Two Decades in Microsoft Hybrid & HCI

I write this blog as a longtime Microsoft advocate with two decades of hands-on experience—from early Hyper-V in 2008 to today’s Azure Local. This series aims to highlight the potential of Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) as a viable alternative for organizations transitioning away from VMware, especially in light of Broadcom’s acquisition. While I value Azure’s Cloud and Hybrid offerings, I believe Microsoft’s current messaging overlooks WSFC’s capabilities in providing cost-effective, high-availability solutions. Through this blog, I intend to shed light on WSFC’s strengths and advocate for its consideration in modern IT infrastructures.

• Introduction
• Azure Local (formerly Azure Stack HCI)
  • Key characteristics and features
  • Azure Local Use cases
• Traditional WSFC with External SAN/NAS Storage
  • Key characteristics and features
  • Traditional WSFC Use cases
• Windows Server Failover Clustering with Storage Spaces Direct (S2D)
  • Key characteristics and features
  • WSFC with S2D Use cases
• Comparative Analysis of the Three Solutions
  • Comparison Matrix
  • Azure Local – Pros and Cons
  • Traditional WSFC + SAN – Pros and Cons
  • WSFC + Storage Spaces Direct – Pros and Cons
• Industry and Workload Considerations
  • Industry Examples
  • Workload Examples
• Optional Azure Integration for WSFC (SAN or S2D) Clusters
• Decision Framework – Choosing the Right Approach
• Conclusion

Introduction

In modern Windows infrastructure, there are multiple strategies for building highly available clusters. This content, originally published as a blog, was adapted into a presentation for a session at MMS MOA 2025, To Windows Server or Not: The Clustering Question, where the PowerPoint version is available. The session compares three key solutions side-by-side: Azure Local (Azure Stack HCI), Windows Server Failover Clustering with External Storage (traditional 3-tier architecture using SAN/NAS), and Windows Server Failover Clustering with Storage Spaces Direct (S2D). We explore the technical architecture of each, their pros and cons, and strategic considerations. Key factors like cost, scalability, performance, hardware needs, manageability, cloud integration, licensing, and best-fit use cases are analyzed with comparison tables for clarity. A dedicated section on demo scenarios is included to showcase strengths and differences in a lab environment. Finally, we provide a decision framework to guide choosing the right approach based on an organization’s needs.