Why Centralized NVR Recording Does Not Work

By: John Honovich, Published on Jul 10, 2008

Centrally recording video from remote sites is as frequently claimed as it is wrong. It is an exciting concept that fails due to basic technical details. Vendors claiming their system eliminates local recording are almost invariably wrong. The problem is simple - the cost of long-distance (WAN) bandwidth is very high and it destroys any savings you might achieve from eliminating the local device.

[UPDATE 2012: While VSaaS vendors have promoted such an archictecture, the reality 4 years later is that centralized NVR recording is still not viable for anything more than a trival number of cameras per site and even then the economics remain poor.]

The Concept

You are a retailer, organization or corporation with multiple stores, locations or branch offices. Today, at each of those locations, you have a DVR with storage at each of these remote sites. It's expensive to buy all of these units. It is hard to maintain them because when they break, someone needs to be dispatched far away.

It would be far better if we just had IP cameras and used an IP network to stream the video directly from the cameras to a centralized storage cluster. This would significantly reduce equipment cost, increase storage utilization and make fixing hardware failures easy because the equipment is all in one simple to access location.

The key problem is bandwidth. If you are not comfortable with how much bandwidth is available and how much it costs, please read my bandwidth basics tutorial.

While bandwidth is cheap inside of buildings, connecting a facility to a remote facility is usually very expensive. Getting 10 Mb/s of bandwidth can easily cost $1,000+ USD per month.

If you are going to record off-site, even if you only have 8 cameras, it can easily take 10 Mb/s. And that's just for standard definition cameras. If you start to use megapixel cameras, the situation is far worse.

As a customer, it will cost you far more in bandwidth than what you can save in system costs. Over a 5 year period, the bandwidth cost will be $60,000 per site. The DVR itself costs less than $10,000 so even if you magically eliminated the DVR, the bandwidth increase would still make it a loss.

The Spin

Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News
Get Notified of Video Surveillance Breaking News

Most vendors are prepared to handle rebuttals to this. Here are a couple and the truth to them:

  • "Of course, you need to have the bandwidth": This is the "it ain't my fault" rejoinder. The vendor's point is that their system is capable of doing, it's someone else's fault. I find this entirely unconvincing. Since almost no one has the bandwidth available to do this cost-effectively, they should simply drop the pitch rather than try to spin the customer"
  • "You may have the bandwidth": You may have the bandwidth but almost no IT department wants to waste such valuable resources to reduce equipment cost. Large 'pipes' across the WAN are usually used for business critical operations and running surveillance video 24/7 will generally be seen as a poor use."
  • "Bandwidth is Getting Cheaper": Bandwidth to remote sites is getting cheaper at a very slow rate. Your cable modem speed and pricing is not that much different than it was 10 years ago even though your computer offers 10x the CPU speed at less cost. Bandwidth for this application has not got much cheaper and there is no real explanation of why it will get significantly cheaper in the next few years."
  • "You can Record at a lower rate and resolution": Since bandwidth is very expensive, if you lower the bandwidth per camera, then you can make it fit. This usually results in recording at CIF at only a few fps. This is a very significant tradeoff that most people do not want to make. It significantly undermines the quality of the video which at a basic level, is somewhat self-defeating."
  • "You can put Storage in the Camera.": This is the hot new spin that takes 2 forms; using (1) flash or (2) hard drives. While the price of flash is dropping faster than the price of hard drives, flash is still drastically more expensive than hard drives. Plus video consumes lots of storage. The economics of flash are not even close for general usage. Hard drives inside of cameras has unrealistic economics and logistics as well. VideoIQ has recently started pushing cameras with built-in storage. It is significantly more expensive than normal cameras (they claim $1295 MSRP for their cameras with an 80GB hard drive). The form factor is quite large and prevents customers from using discrete domes (which are often preferred). It currently requires to use their video management system. They claim that their hard drives last 4 times as long as normal hard drives, an extremely hard to believe claim. I expect to see more claims of storage in cameras and that such products will be a poor fit for most customers.

Conclusion

I hope this article helps clarify the problems with the oft-repeated claim that you can or should do centralized NVR recording. While it's a nice concept, the chances are extremely high that it will not work for you. Hopefully vendors will take a more responsible and prudent approach going forward.

2 reports cite this report:

Is Bandwidth a Problem for IP Cameras? on Mar 21, 2009
Integrators often cite bandwidth as a key concern for deploying IP cameras. Let's examine what the potential issues are and where they may be...
Value of Managed Video (MVaaS) for Video Surveillance on Sep 03, 2008
Managed video is poised to experience similar growth and impact that IP video surveillance software has achieved over the past 5 - 10 years. As...

Related Reports

NetApp Video Surveillance Profile on Mar 09, 2020
NetApp is increasing its efforts in video surveillance and told IPVM surveillance storage is the fastest-growing segment of its $6+ billion...
Video Surveillance 101 Course - Last Chance on Feb 20, 2020
This is the last chance to join IPVM's first Video Surveillance 101 course, designed to help those new to the industry to quickly understand the...
Video Surveillance Architecture 101 on Feb 18, 2020
Video surveillance can be designed and deployed in a number of ways. This 101 examines the most common options and architectures used in...
IPVM Opens 12,000 Sqft Testing Facility on Dec 16, 2019
IPVM is proud to announce the opening of the world's first video surveillance testing facility that will allow us to significantly expand our...
Proactive CCTV "Only Affordable Video Archiving Solution" Profile on Aug 12, 2019
Proactive CCTV is claiming to offer "the only affordable video archiving solution on the market", reducing the storage typically required for H.265...
Manufacturer Favorability Guide 2019 on Jun 12, 2019
The 259 page PDF guide may be downloaded inside by all IPVM members. It includes our manufacturer favorability rankings and individual...
Smart CODEC Usage Statistics 2019 on Jun 03, 2019
Smart codecs are now nearly a standard feature in IP cameras, but our statistics show integrator adoption has not increased at the same rate. In...
Average Frame Rate Video Surveillance 2019 on May 23, 2019
What is the average frame rated used in video surveillance systems? In IPVM's 2011 statistics, the average was 6-8fps increasing to ~10fps in...
H.265 Usage Statistics on Apr 19, 2019
H.265 has been available in IP cameras for more than 5 years and, in the past few years, the number of manufacturers supporting this codec has...
Favorite Video Storage / Server Manufacturers 2019 on Mar 25, 2019
189 integrators answered this question: "What is your favorite storage device / server manufacturer for recording video? Why?" In general...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Viakoo Presents Cyber Hygiene for Cameras on May 28, 2020
Viakoo presented its 'Cyber Hygiene' and 'Service Assurance' products at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A...
Seek Scan Thermal Temperature Screening System ReTested on May 28, 2020
Now that IPVM has tested Dahua, Hikvision, and Sunell, we are returning to Seek, the first blackbody system we tested and retested it with our...
Directory of 106 "Fever" Camera Suppliers on May 28, 2020
This directory provides a list of "Fever" scanning thermal camera providers to help you see and research what options are available. There are...
Fever Cameras Are Medical Devices, Per The FDA, Dahua, Feevr, Hikvision, InVid Contrary Claims Are False on May 28, 2020
Fever cameras are medical devices, despite what euphemisms various sellers use. The US FDA clearly categorizes them as medical devices and...
Wyze Raises $10 Million And Seeks Services Expansion on May 27, 2020
Wyze has raised $10 million, the company's first disclosed raise since the $20 million announced at the beginning of 2019. Inside this note,...
Startup Videoloft Presents Cloud Storage on May 27, 2020
Videoloft presented offsite cloud storage at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. A 30-minute video from Videoloft including IPVM...
Directory of 300+ Fever Camera News Reports Globally on May 27, 2020
This global directory tracks 300+ articles about thermal cameras used to detect fevers in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Articles are...
Integrators Rising Against Coronavirus on May 27, 2020
IPVM integrator statistics make it clear - Coronavirus's impact on business is lessening and many are anticipating even better news in weeks...
Netposa Stock Surges 46% After US Human Rights Abuse Sanctions on May 27, 2020
Last Friday, the US government announced it would sanction PRC video management provider NetPosa for being "complicit in human rights violations...
LILIN Presents NDAA-Compliant P2 Cameras on May 26, 2020
Merit LILIN presented its NDAA-compliant P2 camera series at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video...