Re: Scalable Video (90 Channels) NVR

["Bob La Londe" <none@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"G. Morgan" <sealteam6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kact38pgbcr1dna88vlbgl5kt7pasmg520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Bob La Londe Wrote:
>
>>"G. Morgan" <sealteam6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:8j2r38t96libpv89bgum2i4jjm9u8lqb5b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Bob La Londe Wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Bob La Londe" <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>news:QQc%r.566$X25.230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Recommendation?  Everything I am finding really quick maxes at 32
>>>>> channels. I can tell the customer that scalability requires adding
>>>>> units
>>>>> I
>>>>> guess...
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I am looking at bandwidth usage for MP+ IP cameras and the data
>>>>> load
>>>>> is staggering.  I am thinking secondary network with a router
>>>>> connecting
>>>>> it to the primary network is necessary if you have more than a few
>>>>> cameras.
>>>>
>>>>The customer specified:
>>>>
>>>>6 cameras to start
>>>>Equivalent of 2MP resolution view and record
>>>>30 days minimum storage
>>>>Scalable to maintain specs up to 90 channels.
>>>>
>>>>They did not specify IP or NVR, but I don't know any way to do it
>>>>without
>>>>going that way and sticking strictly with H.264 and keeping it down
>>>>around
>>>>5
>>>>frames.  I am still limited to telling them to buy more NVRs for each 32
>>>>channel block.
>>>>
>>>>Even with H.264 at 5 frames we are looking at 92.7 Mbps plus overhead by
>>>>the
>>>>time they meet full scale.  If they demand higher frame rates on motion
>>>>it
>>>>goes through the roof.
>>>
>>> May want to consider cloud storage like Amazon S3.  That is going to be
>>> terabytes of data for 30 days storage.
>>
>>Looking at a minimum of 9 terabytes when fully expanded.  Found a unit
>>capable of 18 or 9 with raid.  Available to start with 3 and all drives
>>are
>>hot swappable.
>
> You can start with 3 drives?  Is this a RAID5 array?

3 Terrabytes.  I was talking about terabytes.

> What about backups and redundancy?  Have you considered cloud storage at
> all?  You could set the local head-end to keep only 24-48 hours on-site
> (dramatically reducing number of disks) and unlimited archives on a
> cloud server(s).

If the customer wants to stream off site that is their choice.  They didn't
ask for that, and seemed strongly adverse to adding to their recurring
costs.


> You may find it's much cheaper and reliable to use a
> connected "Simple Storage Service".

Uh-huh.  Like a simple stack connected to the SCSI port.  Again... I am
bidding this against other companies so up sells have to come later.

> Standard Storage Reduced Redundancy Storage
> First 1 TB / month $0.125 per GB $0.093 per GB
> Next 49 TB / month $0.110 per GB $0.083 per GB
> Next 450 TB / month $0.095 per GB $0.073 per GB
> Next 500 TB / month $0.090 per GB $0.063 per GB
> Next 4000 TB / month $0.080 per GB $0.053 per GB
> Over 5000 TB / month $0.055 per GB $0.037 per GB
>
> http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing

Plus account fee.

>>  Comes with 8 licenses and capable of 128.
>
> License for what, users or cameras?

IP cameras.  Users are unlimited.

>> Set it up with
>>its own switch and good to go.  Can process upto 280 Mps internally so it
>>can handle the load.  Need to plan all 10/100/1000 hardware though.
>
> Definitely.  CAT6 or are you going to try with CAT5?

Have you actually looked up Cat 6?  From what I have been able to find Cat 6
is just Cat 5e which is certified to actually meet Cat 5e standards.  There
is actually a difference between 5 and 5e however.

So, anyway...  I have to meet the spec they provided which is not to
redesign the spec and let the other bidders price off my work.