voip-ninja

Thanks, I did that. I think they have a good solution and can see why many professionals like it. Just won't quite meet my needs at this point, but I did give them feedback on what I thought the strengths and weaknesses were compared to their competition.

Because I have Macs... and I don't always want to have to be running a Windows VM just to access security feeds. If my doorbell rings I like to just pull up a quick web browser to see who is at the door, or walk over to a tablet, etc, that is monitoring the feeds all of the time. One plus for ExacQ is that they offer a full featured thick client for OS X... which is sweet, but their mobile apps are terrible. I would say that for my own uses, the mobile apps are probably the #1 or #2 thing as far as overall experience goes. This is because I usually leave 1 or more mobile devices up and connected, and when I'm working at my corporate offices I often check on package deliveries, dog sitter showing up, etc, with my iPhone or a web browser, not with a thick client. I really appreciate everyone's help though in playing with all of these different packages, and Alex's offer of doing teamviewer to get Avigilon going was especially helpful to me (even though I figured it out on my own). The good news here, for us consumers, is that these packages are getting better and better every year. I evaluated a lot of this stuff in the Oct/Dec time-frame and it has already improved ... a LOT in some cases (Milestone is like 10X better than it was last time I looked at it). For those of you guys who move a lot of Avigilon installations, please give them some feedback courtesy of me, your typicaly joe schmoe consumer; 1. They should offer the ability to configure the port #s for the web gateway at install time. 2. They should work to further enhance their mobile apps. 3. They should offer a native OS X client... or, barring that, they should offer a "light weight" web client that works with different browsers, even if it does nothing other than offer basic live view and minimal playback controls... as an aside, one of my biggest beefs with Synology is that they have a huge thick-client type web client that relies on Java, is slow as hell, and is constantly broken every time Java gets updated. I would say out of everything I've looked at this past week this is how I personally rank these packages for my own uses (obviously everyone has different needs); 1. Milestone XProtect. 2. Avigilon 3. ExacQ 4. Synology

Understandable, but very unfriendly for everyone running anything other than windows. I would actually say that a ligher weight web client that works with all browsers (like Milestone) is more of an advantage in this area... use that light weight browser for quick access and fire up a virtual machine running Windows if you need the full client. The mobile client for Avigilon is pretty simple but the IQ is good and the ability to manage layouts is a big plus. Playback smoothness is not as good as Milestone and it does not have some of the Milestone niceties such as showing visual indicators in the mobile view for activities such as "recording" and "alarm event". Also, I am not sure if Avigilon has the capability of staying up and connected with the mobile indefinitely, Milestone specifically has a setting of "do not sleep when viewing streaming video" and it will stay up and reconnect as needed pretty much indefinitely from what I've seen. Really though, lack of web browser support for anything other than IE is a deal breaker for me with Avigilon. Thanks all for the help in getting it going and playing around with it. If I ran all Windows machines I might more strongly consider it. As it is looks like I'll probably be plunking down for some Milestone licenses soon.

too bad really too because the mobile device playback quality looks to be really good.

I thought maybe they weren't serious, but apparently they are. Fails with Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Sorry guys, but I don't speak Internet Explorer. That's the browser I use to install a better browser.

I got it figured out. PITA though. The problem is, whenever I would click on the "gateway" setup link it was giving me a "page not found" but only after it redirected to some goofy default search link for the local page index file. I was able to simply point to http://localhost:my-port-# and finally got it to pop the login page. Further complicating things was that some of the time I was trying to access it from another machine on the network and you can't do this unless you turn remote admin on. So, recap; 1. modified http ports as previously discussed. 2. go to http://localhost:my-port# and login 3. add the gateway I also stopped IIS a bunch of times so not sure if that was involved with jiggling it loose. I notice that every time I start Avigilon Web Gateway though that IIS automatically starts back up again.

I am not getting a login page or anything else. Just the page you are seeing in the screen capture. I only get that if I force my port # in when connecting. If I click the gateway setup link I get "page not found".

here we go There must be something else to it, because it's not working. When I make these changes, kill the IIS service and then click the program->avigilon->gateway config choice I get a localhost page trying to load that says "not found". If I manually change the port # in the web browser to 61000 (the port I configured for http) I get a broken page load that says "Avigilon Control Center Gateway". This is what I have in my config file; <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?> <Root> <LastEditingVersion> <ConfigItem name="Major" type="Integer" value="0"/> <ConfigItem name="Minor" type="Integer" value="0"/> <ConfigItem name="Cycle" type="Integer" value="0"/> <ConfigItem name="Release" type="Integer" value="0"/> <ConfigItem name="Build" type="Integer" value="0"/> </LastEditingVersion> <Gateway> <ConfigItem name="OverridePorts" type="Boolean" value="1"/> " was zero" <ConfigItem name="HttpPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61000"/> " was 80 "80 <ConfigItem name="HttpsPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61001"/> " was 443 "443 <ConfigItem name="HttpCfgPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61000"/> was " 80 " <ConfigItem name="HttpsCfgPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61001"/> was " 443 " </Gateway> </Root>

What comes up is the Windows Home Server landing page. I'm not sure if there is a way to disable it or if it is wise to do so. Easier to use another port. I am at lunch with my wife but will work on this in a bit when I get home.

Unfortunately I can't seem to find the process (I know it's part of Windows Home Server garbage) to kill it off. I will do as Alex shows and change the port# there. Is there a script to re-start the web gateway? It's not showing up in the process list either.

So, there seem to be some Avigilon experts here. I've got the camera server installed, and it automatically detected my cameras including the model #. For both camera models (P3364 and SNV5080R) it shows ONVIF as the connection type. I had to manually add the cams though to get them to connect. The good news is that they work. Does anyone know how to change the default port # for the web gateway? It looks like it coded itself to port 80 which is already in use on my server. I will need to set it to something arbitrary to get it to work with my test setup. I've been poking around in the http directory for the service but don't find where I can set this and it doesn't look like there's a GUI setting to adjust it. Thanks.

Neato. I'm downloading it now, the first question is if it will work with the 5080R cams, since if not that's a deal breaker. I have no plans to replace those anytime soon.

http://avigilon.com/support-and-downloads/for-software/software-updates-and-downloads/, you need Server 5.0, and Gateway 5.0, to start (the server installer also puts the client on the machine you are installing it on, you'll need the Client 5.0 on other machines, or use the Web client (which is the best web client I have seen, BTW, although you need IE with plugins for it). Depends on how many cameras, and how many clients at a time (especially mobile clients, the server app is as light as Exacq, but it loads down a lot when transcoding for the mobile client). A small number of cameras should be fine with your setup. As far as iSCSI, on the server side, you just need an iSCSI initiator, which has been supported since XP, you just need the storage to be supported as a target. Thanks again for all of the info. If you do get a definitive answer on how the Internet setup is being done on your installs I would love to get the details. My only concern is that I use DynDNS and don't want to have to reconfigure the server every time my WAN IP changes.

Just keep in mind that Core only has 2 client connections to server Ah. That could be a bit of a problem but I doubt I would spring for the enterprise version so I will give core a try. Normally I have a tablet up and displaying the cams 24/7 and then randomly access via client, web browser or another mobile device. Milestone gives five client connections with the essentials version.

Get ACC5 server file from website start installations u will get choice to install as 30 days demo pick Enterprise version Enjoy Thanks Alex! Is enterprise required for the demo? I have a small 4 cam setup that would not grow to more than 8 cams. What's the best version for purchase in a small home/retail environment?

Milestone web server does not require plugins and works with all browsers I have tried including Safari. Mobile apps are pretty solid but the mobile server did crash once which left an android client showing a static image till I refreshed it. All in all the Milestone mobile apps are the best I've seen. The ability to show 'recent events' for recordings as well as the playback with PIP is pretty nice. Very interested in seeing how Avigilon compares. The ExacQ mobile apps are pretty weak compared to milestone especially with reviewing recorded video.

Ok thanks again for the info. When ExacQ supported the SNV5080 but not the 5080R it would not work. I will see with Avigilon if i am luckier. How does one get a demo? Also what are minimum specs like on Avigilon? I am going to run this on a Windows Home Server (HP EX495) that I've upgraded to a 2.94ghz C2D CPU and 4GB of RAM. Down the line I might reload it with Windows Server 2008 (I would not be able to use iSCSI till then since Server 2003 doesn't support iSCSI targets that I'm aware of).

I would try it but SNV-5080R is not supported yet. Also quite a lot of fuzziness on costs, upgrade/maintenance fees etc, compared to others.

Hey Hardwired. Thanks for responding. I actually installed a trial version of ExacQ and was not all that impressed with it. The ability to review captured video with both the dedicated client and mobile apps is much more powerful with Milestone. The one thing that was a huge plus with ExacQ was the ability to install on a Linux box (no Windows OS cost) as well as a dedicated OS X client (which I wish Milestone would do). Now that I've tried Milestone, ExacQ and Synology I should probably put a post together about my impressions of all three. I'm curious about what you said about not defining the WAN IP. Do you not check the box at install for "internet access" at all then? If that will work then I will definitely do it, as I won't have to worry about updating the WAN IP when it changes (I use DHCP and DynDNS). I don't need the dedicated client to work via the internet, just web and mobile device access. Also, I'm trying to decide (and waffling) between getting the Essentials version or the Express version. From what I can tell the only difference is the ability to write to NAS shares with Express, and not sure that is a must have for me as the box I will be putting it on has 2TB of free space... NAS does have advantages though against data loss and other things... so still mulling it over. Also, do you feel that the upgrade protection is worth it for Milestone? I know that they should be due to come out with a new version around September and I wouldn't want to miss out on a lot of new features if I purchased in August and a new version was about to come out. Thanks

I'm also considering ExacQ. Anyone have any comments on that software?

Well I can only comment on my own installation. Upper middle class neighborhood with nice newer model homes on small lots. We've had no burglaries in our neighborhood but there have been some in the other nearby suburbs, some of which are much higher dollar than ours. We have had a couple of incidents of minor vandalism and one case of someone driving into our fence. It's nice having the cams for these sorts of things, as well as keeping track of the package deliveries, dog walker, housekeepers, etc. I also view it as a deterrent. If someone is going to do a burglary, unless they are higher IQ crooks they are more likely going to steer clear of the house with CCTV.... similar for home invasion type situation. Since our house is a large home on the corner and highly visible with hundreds of cars driving by every day I guess I am more concerned we could be a target. None of my neighbors have commented on the cams and I have someone who lives nearby who just sold their home for top dollar so doesn't appear to be hurting "resale values" or making the neighborhood look trashy. Admittedly I have only seen cams on two other homes that are within a 20 minute walk of mine. Both were higher dollar homes. One abutted a park and could have more issues with trespassing or minor vandalism. None have up big obnoxious cams or signs that warn people they're being recorded.

Will be testing it out over the next couple of weeks before plunking down cashola on a license. For now I'm suitably impressed. Far far more capable than Surveillance Station with the only real problem that you need a real PC with some muscles (C2D CPU or better) to run it as the mobile server is pretty resource intensive.

Sorry that was a typo. I am using 8041 for http and 8042 for https. Ports definitely forwarded. The ios and android apps use the same ports and work over the internet. What was not working was the web client.

OK, I think I've resolved it, but not 100% sure what did it. I reinstalled the software, this time installing the "essentials version". Interestingly, even though I had deleted the previous version installation file, when this one installed my entire config was still on the box (nifty). I had also uninstalled the 2.5a version of the mobile server and instead configured the 2.0a version that is bundled with the primary installer. A step that confused me before but appears to be necessary is that even though the server appears to be "up and running" (you can see it in the system tray, etc) it still needs to be added to the primary Milestone admin. Once I did all of this, I could access the server using my dndns name. It's worth noting that Milestone is currently configured with my "external access" IP for internet access configured to be my static WAN IP, not my DNS name... not sure if Milestone can handle using the DNS name, perhaps that is also part of the problem. I then updated Milestone Mobile server to 2.5a and things continue to work (although the access URL changed which is a bit odd, looks like they shortened and consolidated it to just "index"). Anyhow.