This local disk HA option is a perfect example of the trade-off we often have to make between a low upfront cost and easy operations in the future. I've run into many great PVS prospect customers who do not own a SAN, but still require high-availability from PVS because so many of their users rely on it for XenApp server or VDI machines. It does however increase operating expenses to deploy it this way because you have to copy multi-gigabyte files around multiple times throughout a single versioning of a vDisk. Compare this to using a shared LUN ($) (with a cluster file system ($)) where you only have to copy the file once.
So when choosing a HA method for PVS, be sure to take into account where the best place to make that investment is. Lower initial cost or easier operations, which one is worth more?
In a future blog post I will explore an undocumented method for managing vDisks that can be even quicker and easier than using a regular shared LUN or folder, on the right kind of storage.
More Recomended Reading
More information on Provisioning Server
Microsoft Virtualization, Citrix, XENServer, Storage, iscsi, Exchange, Virtual Desktops, XENDesktop, APPSense, Netscaler, Virtual Storage, VM, Unified Comminications, Cisco, Server Virtualization, Thin client, Server Based Computing, SBC, Application Delivery controllers, System Center, SCCM, SCVMM, SCOM, VMware, VSphere, Virtual Storage, Cloud Computing, Provisioning Server, Hypervisor, Client Hypervisor.