...

The reliability advantage compared to shared or local storage should be obvious.

...

Shared - cheaper, faster, half-baked reliability

If infrastructure includes a direct-attached storage unit used as a shared storage solution, there is a high chance that the vendor has included the device software that operates with the device. There may even be distributed solution working in this unit but it must be kept in mind that this kind of storage is distributed within the device itself. If the storage device should fail, all the data is still unreachable - the data protection works at the disk level. 

To raise the protected sphere to the rack level, several such storage units must be placed in one rack. Now if Infrastructure contains more than 2 racks (which should be the normal case for DC), why are they not separated from compute units to form the autonomous distributed storage cluster? One answer to that might be the performance. As off-the-shelf storage units usually include “real RAID” controllers (with detached CPU and cache) and connection to compute units is direct (not over the network) the performance may be significantly higher than that of the distributed storage could offer.

Local - cheapest, not definitely fastest

Nowadays, the cost of the TB as a single disk is very low compared to the same capacity implemented in the form of an advanced storage device. However fast the single disk might be, it couldn’t compare with the direct-attached, performance-tuned shared storage system.

Warren components placement in DC

...