Is there an update on that Microsoft Blog page?
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/san/2011/09/01/the-windows-disk-timeout-value-less-is-better/
Most, not to say all, storage vendors recommend large timeout values (60, 120, 190) to cop with controller failover and the only recommendation from Microsoft would be "less is better" ?
[quote]
(higher value) can make troubleshooting extremely difficult, because on one hand you would have a SQL client application acting slow, and SQL reporting slow I/O, at the same time that there are no events from Windows.
[/quote]
This page probably refers to a scenario that rarely exists : bad link quality with the storage.
In the more frequent scenario of a inaccessible disk, what do you want to "diagnose" ? You ought to have warnings / errors at the storage array / switch levels to diagnose.
When a disk outage occurs, unless the OS as some resources to find another path, which is handled t the "multipath / mpio" level , there's nothing else to do but wait , as much as possible.
My experience with storage array controller failover is that when the disk timeout [quote] surfaces [/quote] before the failover completes, Windows simply crashs...
I prefer a long Freeze properly handled rather than a crash.