Comparison

Below we've summarized the most prominent features of the Advatronix Cirrus 1200, the Dell T320, and Fujitsu TX150-S8 in the table below.

Cirrus 1200 vs Alternatives
  Cirrus 1200 Dell T320 Fujitsu TX150-S8
Server format Non-standard cubic
tower
4U rack or tower 4U rack or tower
Max. processing power Quad-core
Xeon E3 2.4 GHz
10-core
Xeon E5-2470 at 2.4 GHZ
8-core Xeon
E5-2450 at 2.1 GHz
Max. RAM capacitiy 32GB 96GB 96GB
Max. Raw HD Storage Capacity 10 x 4TB
(+ 2 x 1TB)
8 x 4TB 8 x 4TB
Max. Networking capabilities 2 x 1GbE
2 x 10 GbE (optional)
2 x 1 GbE
quadport GbE (***)
2 x 1 GbE quadport GbE (***)
Expansion 1 PCIe 8x slot(*) 5 PCIe Slots 5x PCIe
1x PCI
Best PSU
Redundant?
400W (Gold)
yes
495W (Platinum)
yes
450W (Platinum)
yes
Min. idle power consumption (**) 89W <70W 65W
Price (see below) $5874 $5983 No idea

(*) Two taken by standard Adaptec RAID card, one free
(**) According to vendor specifications
(***) You can add more ports by using optional NICs

Both Fujitsu and Dell offer more processing power, as the Xeon E5-24xx is able to offer 8 to 10 cores and much larger L3 caches (up to 20MB instead of 8MB). Combine this with the possibility of up to 96GB of RAM (6 x 16GB), and it is clear that the Dell and Fujitsu can be used as virtual host servers. The Cirrus 1200 is much less suitable for that kind of workload.

The Advatronix specs are clearly favorable when it comes to storage and file serving. It offers an optional 10 GbE NIC while the Dell is stuck at quadport 1 GbE. There are fewer limitations when it comes to using 4TB disks than is the case for Dell and Fujitsu. And you can mix the slow and large capacity 3.5" HDs with 2.5" SSDs; Dell and Fujitsu require you to chose between the two.

Price Comparison
Fujitsu goes the IBM way: it is not transparant about pricing and the focus of the company seems to be on the more expensive servers and not on "industry standard" (x86) servers. Unfortunately, were unable to get pricing details.

Dell thankfully does not let us down. For the Dell configuration we took the following options: Xeon E5-2430L (6 cores at 2 GHz, 60W TDP), the chassis with 8 3.5'' drive bays, the PERC H710p RAID controller, 4 x 8GB ECC DIMMs and 8 x 2TB SATA drivers. We used a low power Xeon E5 to be comparable with the Cirrus 1200's low power Xeon E3. The PERC RAID controller was chosen to be in the same league as the Adaptec 71605 of the Cirrus 1200.

We selected the Cirrus 1200—Windows Server 2012 Standard configuration and added 32GB of ECC RAM for Advatronix. You get slightly less processing power, but the Cirrus 1200 offers you a lot more storage instead. You get 10 standard 2TB drives (instead of 8 in Dell) and two 250GB drives for booting the OS. Considering that Dell charges you $324 per 2TB drive, the Cirrus 1200 is competitively priced.

The Cirrus 1200 has fewer expansion slots, but we doubt that will be a show stopper in most small enterprises. That's especially true when you consider that you can add an optional 10 GbE controller, an option that Dell does not offer.

The biggest advantage of the Dell configuration is the dual SD module (limited to a small 2GB) that can be used to host a VMware ESXi , (Citrix) Xen server, (Redhat) KVM, or Microsoft Hyper-V hypervisor. As a result, you save a bit on power (about 12W compared to a RAID-1 SATA configuration) and you get a more robust solution than what is possible with SATA disks.

 

Alternatives Our Test: a Low Latency Database Server
Comments Locked

39 Comments

View All Comments

  • JohanAnandtech - Sunday, June 8, 2014 - link

    The last point is where you make a reasoning error. Most enterprises just do not want to build their own fileserver, otherwise there would be not NAS market.
  • sciencegey - Monday, June 9, 2014 - link

    I was using the last point as an example of what a SOHO could do, which this storage server is targeted at.
  • tential - Saturday, June 7, 2014 - link

    Why couldn't they just sell the case by itself.....

    I don't need a 4500 system, I need a decent case like that.
  • Aikouka - Monday, June 9, 2014 - link

    Yeah, I was hoping this was actually just a server case review. =(
  • AdvatronixSystems - Saturday, September 27, 2014 - link

    We do sell the case by itself! :)

    Please contact sales@advatronix.com if you're interested.
  • watersb - Sunday, June 8, 2014 - link

    Thanks for reviewing this. Very interested in storage servers. But at these price points, I'm still in "build-your-own" territory.
  • YouInspireMe - Sunday, June 8, 2014 - link

    I have truly enjoy reading and have learned so much observing the high level exchange of knowledge here on this site I wonder if you could offer a little insight to a less knowledgeable fan of this sight. Other than it being headless and having lower power consumption what are the advantages/differences between a standard server and dedicated PC with sharing on a local network.
  • JohanAnandtech - Monday, June 9, 2014 - link

    Thanks. Another advantage is the build-in BMC which allows you to do remote management (remote power on, remote console). The rest is rather obvious: very little time is needed to replace PSU and the disks. I would definitely like the latter in my desktop :-).
  • CalaverasGrande - Monday, June 9, 2014 - link

    this looks like a server from the 90's except with a powder coat finish! So it must be good?
  • RoboKaren - Wednesday, June 11, 2014 - link

    Why not look at the BackBlaze StoragePod 4.0 derived commercial product, the Storinator: http://www.45drives.com/products/

    If I had $5k to spend on storage, I'd give it a serious look.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now