I have done this for myself (as a test) using Hikvision and Axis cameras, but I have not had any clients with a fast enough connection to warrant a trial of the service.
Companies like http://www.camcloud.com/ are doing it with Axis, but these companies will probably not meet your criteria of 7 years.
Others on this forum may have the experience you are looking for and I hope someone does. If you have the time, try playing around with AWS and the cloud settings on various cameras.
Best of luck!
IPVMU Certified | 12/28/15 04:54am
Thanks, i have been looking at AWS as an option, awaiting a call back from them, Everything i have found so far is I pretty much have to build and manage a VM from them myself. And it seams as though they also want to charge for transfer usage, not just storage amount. I assume they all will want to do the same thing.
IPVMU Certified | 12/28/15 05:42am
OUCH! thanks for the info. I think i can rent brick and mortar space, purchase hard storage and utilize AirFiber Wifi to move the data about cheaper than that. Thats $62k a year! A nice service contract. I'll try to remember to post back what AWS tells me if/when they get in touch.
If I expected to have to retrieve archived video infrequently I would use Amazon Glacier, it's .007 per GB per month, so for 90TB it's $630.
There are no data import fees.
They charge you .50 per 1000 retrievals.
The catch? Retrievals can take from 3-5 hours from initiation, hence the Glacier.
IPVMU Certified | 12/28/15 06:39am
The key with cloud storage beyond the data storage cost and the bandwidth utilization is the ability to play it back without needing an IT person to get involved in the data recovery to redirect it to local storage, then open it with the player app. Searching video would be nearly non-existent. It looks like AWS doesn't support the windows SMB protocol that most NVR's like the exacq I am trying to work with need. Perhaps with some custom programming language in an API and a few redirects you could get the standard cloud storage environments to work, but from what I am seeing they all require a web based upload. I need a file system as in that of an FTP or SMB in order for the exacq to write to the virtual space, and thus also retrieve from that same space for playback.
It appears that AWS is working on it with an NFSv4 but it's currently under limited release: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/amazon-elastic-file-system-shared-file-storage-for-amazon-ec2/ and even so that may require a 3rd party client app to be installed on the exacq server to mount the storage as a drive.
Here is another calculator that is a little easier to use also: https://aws.amazon.com/tco-calculator/
Also from what i can tell is they charge for the initial upload of data, of which would be progressive in the video surveillance world. This calculator is very interesting in comparing the TCO compared with cloud.
IPVMU Certified | 01/03/16 08:35pm
So the customer is out on this as an option. But all the help has been been invaluable. And to to keep up with the suggestions, While the google option appears less exspensive, exacq is only supporting SMB file transfer method. Of which again doesn't appear to be supported directly with google. So I would need another device of which I am unaware of where to go for in which to create this SMB file share.
IPVMU Certified | 01/03/16 10:30pm
Interesting someone else to look at but anything that says SYNC, throws a flag, as I don't want 90 here and 90 there, I just want it there and transferred by the day.
Eagle Eye Networks has the Ability to do this, we have customers that are recording 1MP cameras for 90 Days. and their system has its own bandwidth management.
You are going to have to reach out to datacenter storage facilities for this. Microsoft, Google, Apple are the more noted names. Others such Equinix, Atos and Cisco are out there. Do a simple search for data center service providers. Your physical location will be a factor to consider when choosing which service will work best.
I have experience working with Microsoft Azure and found it acceptable. They do have some new features that may be better suited for video storage.
There's an app for this purpose in our app-store: 6 months video retention cloud storage for $39.99, check www.angelcam.com/apps/cloud-recording for more details.
Any RTSP & h.264 cameras/NVRs are supported currently.
[Note: poster is from Duranc]
Hi Joe, you should check out www.duranc.com and they do offer custom plans for long term storage as well.
IPVMU Certified | 01/17/16 06:03pm
Some other thoughts.... I know some of this doesn't exactly fit your request, but with the cost of doing something, the customer may be open to it .... "close enough..."
How about looking at your local providers? If you are in an area of fiber connectivity, Time Warner and others offer off site storage solutions. Maybe stream the video live rather than as backup? Install your own Exacq servers in the local site. More exacq servers, handling fewer cameras, and lots of storage.
This sounds like a sophisticated user. What are they doing on their IT side? If they are asking you to do this on the video side, they probably have the need on the regular data side. This is just data, stop treating it as video.
IPVMU Certified | 01/17/16 06:39pm
100MB Fiber to the internet, different than that of direct to the local data center.
IPVMU Certified | 01/17/16 06:51pm
And that fiber provider does not have a colo site to offer and some type of off site storage service? I would think they offer it directly or are in bed with someone.
On the file side, I'm not familiar with how Exacq does it, but what I use records files in five minute chunks. The files are named to camera date and time. I can offload those files directly and store them any way I want. I can import them back into the DVR and tell the DVR to "reindex" them into its search directory. So with a little knowledge of date and time, you can get them back.
Since this is not user friendly, that is why I suggested putting an Exacq DVR in the colo site. That way retrieval would be the same as any other Exacq user interface - very user friendly.
IPVMU Certified | 01/17/16 07:01pm
the file structure has been the pesky problem with the indexing requirements. I have not looked into colo but would image that is fairly costly as well, in that i am still paying for the bandwidth, hard fixed cost of storage, rack space, and self maintenance.
There certainly are ways to that are cost effective to get the files there and back, however the video playback and search functions are pretty much non existent with most methods. Short of individual playback or support from IT to merge them, a manual process. not to mention a 6 month data purge interval.