RE: Standalone CCTV DVRs

[Paul Gordon <paul_gordon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Resillience of the services mainly. - Having just experienced a couple of
h=
ardware failures that took both my main servers out of action - and
typical=
ly whilst I was away on holiday for a week as well.. - even though I was
ab=
le to recover all the important data, I still don't have some key services
=
working properly because the physical hardware needs replacing & I have
to =
find the time to rebuild the main server on new kit. If I had been running
=
them as virtual servers, and so long as the virtual disk files were
protect=
ed, I could have got everything back up & running again much quicker by
mig=
rating the VM's to a different host - even a spare PC.

=20

Because I'm in the position of having to rebuild a new server anyway, I
ver=
y much want to run key apps in their own VMs so if the server dies I can
ta=
ke the relevant disk to another machine and have the VM back up in
minutes.=
My original plan was to use ESXi, but I'm almost certain this is a non-sta=
rter because of the 8-port serial card that I *need* to support the
various=
devices that Homeseer talks to (I'd prefer not to go down the USB-RS232 co=
nverter route). Thus I'm looking at a Microsoft solution...=20

=20

I *could* stick with Win 2003, and use MS Virtual Server, but I'd far
rathe=
r use 2008 server and Hyper-V. and of course I could stick with 32-bit
wind=
ows server, but that precludes running Exchange 2007 on the host, (not
sure=
if the old Virual server product supports 64-bit guests on a 32-bit host?)=
.

=20

Oh, and the new mobo I've bought to build the new server on only has a
sinl=
ge PCI slot, so either way, at least one of my existing cards (GV1120 or
8-=
RS232) would have to go; and like I said, I need the COM ports for
Homeseer=
. Geovision software (according to them) is absolutely not supported under
=
any 64-bit versions of windows, so it pretty much has to go as it's now
the=
limiting factor that stops me moving forward to the latest platforms (2008=
R2, due out soon, is only going to be available in 64-bit).

=20

Of course, if I could have everything running on the 1 box - like I have
be=
en for the last few years, that would be great, since as you say, the
stand=
alone CCTV box is "more-or-less" another PC anyway, and will use
additional=
power - perhaps I could consider trying to build an ultra-low power PC *ju=
st* for Geovision... Hmm... I bet I could come up with one that's less
hung=
ry than most of the dedicated DVR boxes... but the main reason for wanting
=
to go to a dedicated box is once again seperation of services and using
har=
dware that is dedicated to the task at hand. Whilst I like Geovision and
it=
's been pretty reliable, the fact that it's running on a PC platform, is
it=
s weakest point IMHO. - I liken it to Comfort, - a dedicated box that does
=
just one thing, it does it well, and it has (for me anyway) NEVER gone
wron=
g - I want that kind of reliability for the CCTV.

=20

Of course, hardware can fail in the CCTV box too, - but I undersatand the
o=
perating firmware on most of them is held in flash, so a disk failure
shoul=
d result only in the loss of recordings (and possibly the ability to
contin=
ue recording if only 1 disk is fitted). Most if not all of those I've
looke=
d at so far have external power supply bricks, so the 2 most likely
hardwar=
e failures are fairly simple to recover from.

=20

There are lots of ways I've considered re-architecting things, but every
po=
tential solution has at least one drawback that precludes one or more of
my=
other critical services, and more often than not, it comes back to the Geo=
vision software being the brake... I'm certainly open to any novel
suggesti=
ons that I might not have considered though...

=20

Paul G.

=20


=20
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> From: groups2@xxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:31:48 +0100
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Standalone CCTV DVRs
>=20
> Hi Paul,
>=20
> What are you trying to gain though with a box like that - surely it'll
us=
e as much energy as a PC with Geovision in it (isn't that the reason for
th=
e change?) - and cost more due to the initial hardware outlay?
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Paul.
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ukha_d@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_d@xxxxxxx] On Behalf
> > Of Paul Gordon
> > Sent: 07 June 2009 13:48
> > To: UKHA Group
> > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Standalone CCTV DVRs
> >=20
> >=20
> > I don't think so, as it's Linux-only isn't it? - wouldn't be a
problem
> > running another Linux VM, but then the same problem exists with
> > acessing the hardware from within the guest OS. Note that as I've
> > previously been using Geovision I already have a number of fixed
CCTV
> > cameras that I don't want to have to rip out & replace with
IP ones -
> > that would double the price (IP cam's are dearer than a similarly
> > specified CCTV cam, so I'd probably have to spend a minimum of
=A3150 p=
er
> > camera to install all IP ones, and I have 4 currently installed
that
> > would need replacing).
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Note that I pretty much *have* to run Windows as the host OS, as
one of
> > the VM's I intend to run is for Homeseer HA software. I have a
> > multitude of RS232-connected devices feeding in to that, so I
need to
> > provide the guest VM with *lots* of serial ports. That's not a
problem
> > per se, - pretty much every hypervisor allows mapping COM ports
to the
> > guests, - but they they still have to be physically present, and
> > supported by the host OS in order to do that... I have a PCI
8-port
> > serial card which I can be pretty certain is never going to work
under
> > ESXi - the supported hardware for that is "thin" to say
the least! - I
> > have windows drivers for it though, so I just need to test &
confirm
> > that the drivers will work under 2008 server and 64-bit... (the
vendor
> > has provided 64-bit Vista drivers to try, hopefully with pukka
2008
> > ones to follow fairly soon).
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Currently I'm looking at something like this one, which seems to
tick
> > pretty much all the right boxes...
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > http://www.cctvdirect.co.uk/products/Satalite-365-8-Ch-High-Resolution-
> > Real-Time-High-End-DVR.html#
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Paul G.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > > From: vworpi@xxxxxxx
> > > Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:58:11 +0100
> > > Subject: Re: [ukha_d] Standalone CCTV DVRs
> > >
> > > I'm not a user myself, but is Zoneminder an option for you?
> > > Max
> > >
> > > 2009/6/7 Paul Gordon <paul_gordon@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I've been a long time Geovision user, and I have no
complaints
> > about that,
> > > > - but... the impossibility of running this system under
any 64-bit
> > OS, or of
> > > > running it in a virual machine (since there is no
hypervisor
> > available that
> > > > I know of that will allow a PCI or PCIe hardware device
to be
> > mapped through
> > > > to a VM), is now just holding me back too much with
what I want to
> > do to
> > > > upgrade my I.T infrastructure; namely to upgrade to Win
2008 R2
> > (which is 64
> > > > bit only) with the improved Hyper-V and run several
VM's for
> > application
> > > > specific services...
> > > >
> > > > Thus I'm forced into looking for an alternative
standalone hardware
> > (non PC
> > > > based) DVR, *OR* a PC based solution that IS supported
under 64 bit
> > Win
> > > > 2008... I'm favouring the former option, - but boy is
there a
> > bewildering
> > > > choice available!
> > > >
> > > > So, I put it out to you lot: -- does anyone on this
list already
> > run a
> > > > standalone CCTV DVR? - If so, what make & model? -
What do you
> > think of it?
> > > > - would you recommend it to someone else?
> > > >
> > > > What I want is a device that pretty much perfectly
replicates the
> > Geovision
> > > > experience:
> > > >
> > > > 4 or 8 channel, with sound
> > > >
> > > > Motion activated recording with user-definable pre
& post record
> > buffers
> > > >
> > > > Ability to mask off parts of the image (trees etc) to
avoid false
> > motion
> > > > detection
> > > >
> > > > Networkable with built-in webserver - view any camera
via any
> > browser -
> > > > including mobile
> > > >
> > > > can send email via SMTP to report various events
> > > >
> > > > date & time stamped recordings to satisfy evidence
requirements
> > > >
> > > > built-in hard drive (or just a bay to fit my own)
> > > >
> > > > Some means of copying recordings off for permanent
storage (either
> > via USB,
> > > > LAN, or built-in DVD)
> > > >
> > > > Automatic storage management (ability to specify no of
days to keep
> > > > recordings etc.)
> > > >
> > > > Ideally a couple of I/O ports to connect it to security
panel to
> > signal an
> > > > external system
> > > >
> > > > And it needs to be in the Geovision price range, - i.e
around the
> > =A3400-ish
> > > > mark, - not some ludicrously expensive =A3900 job!
> > > >
> > > > Anyone got any thoughts or recommendations to narrow
down my
> > search? -
> > > > there are just so many results in Google that it's
going to take me
> > lifetime
> > > > of research otherwise!
> > > >
> > > > Cheers.
> > > >
> > > > Paul G.
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >=20
> >=20
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > ------------------------------------
> >=20
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------------
>=20
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=20
>=20
>=20


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------