Advatronix Cirrus 1200: a Storage Server Under Your Desk
by Johan De Gelas on June 6, 2014 5:00 AM ESTLow latency database transactions test
Before we can start comparing the Cirrus 1200 to an alternative configuration, we must find out how we should configure our system. Indeed there are two cache levels, the RAM cache of the controller and the SSD cache, and both can be set to cache reading and/or writing. That gives us eight different configurations, though not all of them make sense of course.
There is a quirk in the Adaptec software. We first enabled Maxcache on a single SSD. Adaptec asked us whether we are sure (as SSDs can fail too) and when we answered "yes", all the software (BIOS and Maxview) reported proudly that SSD caching was enabled. It turned out that this was not the case at all. Only when we set the SSD to RAID-1 was Maxcache (SSD caching) properly enabled.
The results are somewhat surprising: once the Maxcache works properly, it seems that the RAID controller cache just adds latency. The RAID controller does help when the SSD does not accelerate writing, but with Maxcache active on the SSDs the RAID controller caching slows things down a bit.
The next question that we asked ourselves is whether it still matters to have lots of spinning disks behind the SSD cache. After all, the SSD cache seems to be doing all the hard work. So we replaced the eight Seagate 4TB drives in RAID-10 with a two disk system using RAID-1.
The performance gain of using eight spindles instead of two is pretty small, but it is still measureable. We show a 22% increase in the total number of transactions. In most small businesses this performance increase will not be enough to convince people to use this many disks on for a database. The RAID-1 setup is probably better as more disks can then be used for serving files and documents. This way, the storage capacity of the file server can be a lot bigger, which is a huge advantage. In most enterprises, file server capacity will be a much higher priority than a few procentagaes of extra database performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
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.