uk.local.hampshire

Chris Blunt wrote:

> I stated the hardware costs required to store 18TB of data in response
> to your suggestion that it would be impractical to retain those
> volumes of data. I really don't know why you're having a problem with
> that.

Because what you "stated" or rather "guessed" was incorrect. We
currently pay £28,000 + VAT for each 21TB of storage (SATAbeast). And we
would need one of those arrays for each camera (and there are hundreds
of cameras in each RCC area) each year.

So at a rough guess, to record the output from every camera would need
an expenditure of £49,000,000 + VAT per year. If we have to retain data
for more than a year - the HO requirement is for a *minimum* of six
years - then we would need to spend £294,000,000 over six years. And
that's on storage alone.

If we need to access that data there's a cost. To backup that data also
costs. To introduce fault tolerance could easily double the hardware
costs. If we have to review all recorded data for possible value as
evidence before makign a keep/kill decision there's a bloddy enormous
cost. At present the public objects to even paying essential costs, let
alone to this sort of luxury item.

The fact that you don't know why I'm "having a problem" with the costs
is more a reflection of your ignorance of how to operate IT
infrastructure than of anything else.

And what, at the end of the day would be the point of providing this
recording capacity? To save a a few insurance companies having to make a
payout and in the main to let some vindictive fuckers make petty
complaints against each other.