NAS Recommendation as a surveillance platform

[rory 0]

I wouldn't - I'd use a PC-based hybrid DVR that I know has support for dozens if not hundreds of IP cameras, and facility to add customized camera support. Then I know it stands less chance of becoming obsolete.

why when you can use something for a 1/10th the cost that has all the features that most clients use and can be setup in 1/100th the time??? Everything becomes obsolete sometime especially software, next release of Windows alone could make that happen.

 

Otherwise, unless I'm replacing all my analog cameras with IP cameras, I either end up with two separate systems for analog and IP (which are highly unlikely to share a VMS), or I end up turning the standalone into a boat anchor and replacing it with a hybrid DVR, or an NVR and a buttload of encoders (NOT particularly cost-effective!).

the stand alone cost pennies now .. in 5 years when you finally get around to getting those IP cameras .. that $100 stand alone served you well so you can make a boat anchor out of it or donate it to the needy or make a gold chain out of it or .. whatever you wanna do.

 

What if I'm going to need to add a crapload of external storage?

You can do that with standalones today, so whats the question again?

 

Ahhh, there's your key word: "usually". I'll put a Vigil's ease-of-use up against any standalone, any day.

its what you are used to, thats all. Like MAC and Windows users, some are used to one (most pick Windows LOL).

 

PC requires PC parts, I did it for several years, I built everyone of them, I didnt buy premade because none of them ever come properly setup (i have used premade and seen them enough times on this forum) I dont care if they call it Geo or Virgin, they never setup a PC DVR like I want it - point blank. BUT it takes time and that is money. And you may have an AC room and fire retention and generators and backup solar but the rest of the real world does not. But go with what you are happy with, thats all that matters in life.

 

Ive argued for stand alones (Ge/Kalatel) back in the day when PC DVRs sucked big time and Ive argued for PC when the switch to PC became worth it .. now its the stand alone's time again they are just that good ... Ive developed software for all of them ... you might not like it, you might not use it, but the fact remains hundreds of thousands of others do and have. Its nice to have a difference of opinion though isnt it

[ssmith10pn 0]

Problem solved

 

 

 

[SEANHAWG 1]

Sean so your recommendation is for the customer to have to operate two systems?

 

From what you guys told me, that sounds like the most viable option. The only other options are to spend a ton more money on encoders and such to get all the cameras on one software, which again brings me back to my original point: "Why would you spend a premium on a PC based DVR when you can get a standalone that does essentially the same thing?"

 

What would be your recommendation on the example I gave. If it was you, what would you do?

 

#1) Stick with the Geo software and add the Avigilon IP cameras to the Geo software which may or may not work, and if it does work, you wont have the full compatibility of the Avigilon IP camera

#2) Run Geo Software that is running the 16 Analog cameras seperate from the Avigilon software that is running the 4 Avigilon cameras. (2 Seperate softwares)

#3) Ditch the Geo software totally and spend $3000+ on encoders and licenses (rough estimate, I may be too low) for the 16 analog cameras to run on an outdated PC that you bought a few years ago

#4) Or other option that I did not mention above

[Soundy 1]

What if I'm going to need to add a crapload of external storage?

You can do that with standalones today, so whats the question again?

 

Which ones?

 

I'm talking multiple terabytes in a RAID5/RAID6 format, mind you... name some standalones that support interface via iSCSI, SAS, or other such high-capacity interface.

[thewireguys 3]

#3) Ditch the Geo software totally and spend $3000+ on encoders and licenses (rough estimate, I may be too low) for the 16 analog cameras to run on an outdated PC that you bought a few years ago

 

Your math is WAY off Avigilon VMS + encoders is less then half of your number..... oh and it will run just fine on your outdated PC

[SEANHAWG 1]

Which ones?

 

I'm talking multiple terabytes in a RAID5/RAID6 format, mind you... name some standalones that support interface via iSCSI, SAS, or other such high-capacity interface.

 

You keep making the point that with a standalone you cannot add storage to a standalone. Some good commercial grade DVR's have eSata connections for this. And heck, if you really wanted to use storage that can only be configured by a computer, just network the DVR to a PC that is within the local network and record using the remote management software. Just like magic, you now have a PC based DVR! I've seen some people not even put an internal hard drive in their DVR and record this way. You can do this with the little cheap 4 channels

 

Your math is WAY off Avigilon VMS + encoders are less then half of your number..... oh and it will run just fine on your outdated PC

 

So this is your choice? I'm not saying its a bad one. But why then would you pay $3000-5000 initially on a PC based DVR only to throw it out (or atleast throw out the DVR card) whenever you upgrade to the Avigilon cameras with encoders? When you could have spent alot less on a Standalone. Even if you throw the standalone out and use it as a boat anchor, you still would have spent less than buying a PC based DVR in the first place. Your better off this way as you can now get a newer PC with all the latest technology and not worry about having to update your old outdated PC with the newest OS and all that jazz. Yeah I am sure you can run the Avigilon software on a PC running windows 98 but would you really want to, Cmon. The Avigilon software may slow down your Oregon Trail game if you did that.

[thewireguys 3]

 

 

So this is your choice? I'm not saying its a bad one. But why then would you pay $3000-5000 initially on a PC based DVR only to throw it out (or atleast throw out the DVR card) whenever you upgrade to the Avigilon cameras with encoders? When you could have spent alot less on a Standalone. Even if you throw the standalone out and use it as a boat anchor, you still would have spent less than buying a PC based DVR in the first place. Your better off this way as you can now get a newer PC with all the latest technology and not worry about having to update your old outdated PC with the newest OS and all that jazz. Yeah I am sure you can run the Avigilon software on a PC running windows 98 but would you really want to, Cmon. The Avigilon software may slow down your Oregon Trail game if you did that.

 

 

Sean it's 2011 who is selling windows 98? I have PC based system in the field that are over 5 years old that I could easily replace the VMS software on without throwing away anything. You could even resell the old VMS licenses if you want to so your not losing any money.

 

For smaller setups a $500-600 PC will run the solution just fine.

 

I guess the difference for me is I am selling solutions not DVRs and cameras. If you happy selling $300 DVRs than have at it. The customers we are working need a better solution and that is what we give them.

[SEANHAWG 1]

For smaller setups a $500-600 PC will run the solution just fine.

 

exactly, thats my point. Again, why would you pay thousands on a PC based DVR when all it is is a $500 PC with a $1000+ DVR card on it in which the whole setup costs $3-5000 in its entirety, when a standalone costs much less and if you wanted to get IP cameras later, just get a $500 PC and run it on that.

 

I guess the difference for me is I am selling solutions not DVRs and cameras. If you happy selling $300 DVRs than have at it. The customers we are working need a better solution and that is what we give them.

 

I am not dissing your "solutions" or your precious beloved Avigilon equipment that you sell. I am just trying to make a point. I dont know why you guys get so huffy puffy about this stuff. I mean did I say anything that your solution that you offer is not a good one? I was simply talking about starting out with a PC based DVR to run analog cameras. Put your guard down, no one is out to get you.

[thewireguys 3]

For smaller setups a $500-600 PC will run the solution just fine.

 

exactly, thats my point. Again, why would you pay thousands on a PC based DVR when all it is is a $500 PC with a $1000+ DVR card on it in which the whole setup costs $3-5000 in its entirety, when a standalone costs much less and if you wanted to get IP cameras later, just get a $500 PC and run it on that.

 

My point is WHY waste your money on a DVR that can't be upgraded? And why spend $3000-5000 on a PC based solution when it can be done cheaper and better with an upgrade path WITHOUT wasting any money.

[ssmith10pn 0]

Well that sucks. I lost a post I spent 15 min on.

[SEANHAWG 1]

And why spend $3000-5000 on a PC based solution when it can be done cheaper and better with an upgrade path WITHOUT wasting any money.

 

Thats a great point! If you have all intentions of expanding to IP in the future and you know exactly what IP cameras you are going to use and you are confident that the IP cameras that you plan on using will be fully compatible with the software you are currently using, then I would agree thats a good solution.

 

Here is the problem though: after you add the costs of encoders, switch, PC, and licenses, it still ends up being way more expensive than your typical comparative standalone, not to mention it takes more technical "know how" to get this setup compared to a standalone. And my guess is that the reason that person is starting out with Analog cameras in the first place is that that particular person does not have the budget to get a Megepixel based solution in the first place. So if they are on a budget such as that and they compare the costs of a good standalone compared to the PC based solution, it may make more sense to go with the standalone. Thats all I am saying, yes your solution is a good one, but one that may not be financially viable for that person.

[rory 0]

The customers we are working need a better solution and that is what we give them.

opinion.

[thewireguys 3]

The customers we are working need a better solution and that is what we give them.

opinion.

 

If not why would they be having us quote new systems for them?

[matusiam 0]

And why spend $3000-5000 on a PC based solution when it can be done cheaper and better with an upgrade path WITHOUT wasting any money.

 

 

Hmmm... The majority of people I've been dealing with where concerned about the cost of the system rather then what it can do. Most of them wanted it done as cheap as possible so even telling them about these IP system wouldn't make any sense. For £500 you can get a decent analogue 4 camera equipment. Also, if someone is thinking of swapping to an IP system from an analogue system then that is going to COST A LOT !! Like what seanhawg said :

 

Here is the problem though: after you add the costs of encoders, switch, PC, and licenses, it still ends up being way more expensive than your typical comparative standalone, not to mention it takes more technical "know how" to get this setup compared to a standalone.

 

Hence why now I'm working on a solution in the middle - could be that my idea will not work out as planned, but its always worth giving a try. And it has some limitations from the start. Still, one of my mates that lives in London told me the other day that his work place had an IP CCTV system installed. On 3 buildings (they are close together) , total 11 cameras. The installation cost was about £11k. Now I wonder - did they install superb quality cameras or the majority of the price went towards camera licensing and for the profit of the company installing it. Are IP CCTV systems really that expensive ??? I know that you can get a mobotix camera for £1400 but c'mon - does it really work that way ??

[Soundy 1]

Which ones?

 

I'm talking multiple terabytes in a RAID5/RAID6 format, mind you... name some standalones that support interface via iSCSI, SAS, or other such high-capacity interface.

 

You keep making the point that with a standalone you cannot add storage to a standalone.

I never said you couldn't, I said your options are extremely limited. Rory says you can. Thus my question above. Specifically:

What if I'm going to need to add a crapload of external storage?

You can do that with standalones today, so whats the question again?

 

Which ones?

 

I'm talking multiple terabytes in a RAID5/RAID6 format, mind you... name some standalones that support interface via iSCSI, SAS, or other such high-capacity interface.

 

 

Some good commercial grade DVR's have eSata connections for this.

And that limits your options as well. Few if any RAID arrays have eSATA interface to their host systems, so you're generally limited to a single drive with no redundancy.

 

And heck, if you really wanted to use storage that can only be configured by a computer,

It's nothing to do with "storage that can only be configured by a computer". The point is that if you need more space, very few standalones give you the option to add more, and those that do have limits on what you can add. A PC-based system allows you to add almost any sort of external storage you like, generally with no practical limits on how much. Want to save three years' worth of video? It'll cost you, but it can be done.

[SEANHAWG 1]

Want to save three years' worth of video? It'll cost you, but it can be done.

 

Yeah, I guess for the 1% or less of the population that want to do that, then I guess you got me there.

[rory 0]

Want to save three years' worth of video? It'll cost you, but it can be done.

 

Yeah, I guess for the 1% or less of the population that want to do that, then I guess you got me there.

You can do that with the Dahua DVR also, archiving over the network to a PC.

[frijoli 0]

Unfortunately, you'll find almost all NVR/NAS solutions sell licenses on a per-camera basis.

 

Figure they charge $150 per camera (fairly common)... nice as it would be to get a 16-camera setup for $800 (for only $50 per camera),

 

Synology charges 60 per camera, or a 4 pack license for around 130.

 

just saying....