Should I get megabit or gigabit POE switch? -16 Arecont Cams

[Louie 0]

I would like to know what the best POE switch is when using 16 Arecont cams. I need live viewing and remote viewing to be as fluid as possible. So I'm thinking it has a lot to do with the POE switch. The cameras very in MP's from 1MP to 10MP. Using an exacqvision server - IPS6000R2. Thanks, Louie

[Soundy 1]

For that many cameras, I'd definitely recommend a gigabit switch.

 

However, your remote viewing speed will be limited by your internet connection speed, which will typically be far below even 10Mbit, and the switch you use will have no effect on that.

[Louie 0]

What if I would drop in a dedicated internet line and have the server be the only device plugged into it. So in getting a gigabit switch, how is that going to help my cameras or server? I though by getting a gigabit switch it was going to speed up everything? Sorry I'm really new to IP Cams. Appreciate the reply. Louie

[Soundy 1]

A gigabit switch will let cameras and server communicate efficiently - a 10/100 switch would probably choke on the total load of those cameras.

 

Your internet connection itself, though, will be very limited in bandwidth unless you have BIG money to spend on it. We once priced a dedicated 100Mbit connection for a customer who wanted to set up for offsite recording... it was going to be on the order of several hundred dollars *per month*.

 

A typical residential or small-business broadband connection, at $40-$60/month, won't usually give you more than 10Mbit of upstream (ie. from your system, outward), which would be enough to view one or two cameras smoothly, but no more.

[hardwired 0]

When viewing Exacq remotely over typical DSL-speed connections, I've found that the most fluid framerates are achieved by using the web-based interface, which lets you use lower resolution images, allowing a higher framerate with a given amount of bandwidth (image quality will be lower, or framerate will be lower - pick one).

 

The client software uses full frame images, which will be far slower, especially with megapixel cameras.

[Louie 0]

So I'm going with a gigabit switch then. Any brands you would recommend? Arecont to exacqvision server. What switch would be the best to make them communicate.

[Soundy 1]

Brand alone isn't enough, since most makers have a wide range of models capable of handling different levels of traffic. You want something that doesn't just have gigabit ports, but has a large enough "backplane" (the part that moves all the data between ports) to handle all that traffic.

 

Realistically, you don't need something that's ALL gigabit... a switch with enough 10/100 ports for your cameras, and a gigabit port for your server, will suffice, as very few cameras actually have gigabit ports on them. You may be able to save some money that way. The Cisco SF200-24P, as shown here, would do nicely - 24 10/100 PoE ports, two gigabit combo ports (ethernet, plus a slot to plug in something like a fiber-optic transceiver). We've been using the 8+2 port version of this on a number of sites now and they work great.

[Louie 0]

I have an 8 port etherwan switch at a residential site with 1 gigabit port I believe, my server is connected to the gigabit port, and the 6 cameras are connected to the 10/100 ports, and I am still experiencing slow, choppy, and laggy viewing locally and remotely. Shouldn't the new switch be all gigabit ports to create a better flow of information being transmitted and received? Just a question

 

As far as viewing cameras with the internet viewer, is there a way to turn down video quality so that the cameras being viewed would be a bit more fluid?

[alpine0000 0]

Shouldn't the new switch be all gigabit ports to create a better flow of information being transmitted and received?

 

Sure. All gigabit is nice. But the all gigabit will only help widen the traffic highway between the cameras and the server, and will also help your video transmission from the server to your client machine LOCALLY, assuming that you are connected to the gigabit switch from your client machine, and the client machine has a gigabit NIC.

 

However, if you are using wi-fi from a laptop, or if you arent on the local network, the gigabit switch wont help the server stream the video up over the internet any faster, since, like others have said, the internet will be your bottleneck.

 

I pay $75 a month for Cox business internet at home, and I am getting about 30mbps down and 7mbps up. My video streaming is just OK when I am trying to stream remotely. But I usually dont choose to stream more than 2 or 3 cameras at once. If I load all 6 cameras remotely, its really laggy.

 

I have the Netgear GS110TP switch, and I like it a lot.

 

As far as viewing cameras with the internet viewer, is there a way to turn down video quality so that the cameras being viewed would be a bit more fluid?

 

Yes. If you use the "simple" interface, you can choose the video size and the quality, on a scale of 1 to 10, but you can only choose one camera at a time to view. However, you could open up multiple browser windows if you want to view a few different cameras at once.

[Louie 0]

If we drop in the new gigabit switch and view our cameras with the simple viewer, will the FPS go up inside of the simple viewer. We have 7FPS running right now when viewing the cameras with the simple viewer. Will my FPS increase.

[alpine0000 0]

If we drop in the new gigabit switch and view our cameras with the simple viewer, will the FPS go up inside of the simple viewer. We have 7FPS running right now when viewing the cameras with the simple viewer. Will my FPS increase.

 

The simple viewer has no idea what kind of switch you have. You just select the image quality and the image size from the simple viewer (scale of 1 to 10), and it increases/decreases accordingly (probably via hard-coded code in the exacqvision web server software), regardless of what switch you have.

 

Keep in mind here that your bottleneck is your internet speed, not your switch. You'd be hard-pressed to find an internet speed whose upload ability even gets close to 25% of your switch speed, and thats assuming you only have a 10/100 switch! Like I said, my business-class internet only averages about 7mbps upload.

 

Actually, I just remembered... YOU choose the FPS on the simple viewer -- anywhere from 0 to a big number (I tested and it kept going up above 120 seconds, then I didnt feel like clicking the up button anymore). Then you choose the quality and image size, as well.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Guest

[Soundy 1]

I have an 8 port etherwan switch at a residential site with 1 gigabit port I believe, my server is connected to the gigabit port, and the 6 cameras are connected to the 10/100 ports, and I am still experiencing slow, choppy, and laggy viewing locally and remotely. Shouldn't the new switch be all gigabit ports to create a better flow of information being transmitted and received? Just a question

Well the main thing is, like I said, very few cameras have gigabit ports on them, so you wouldn't get any better speed to the cameras.

 

And again, it all comes down to the backplane.

 

Try this for an analogy: think of the ports as highway on-ramps in the suburbs, your server is downtown where all the traffic is going, and the backplane is your highway. If you have, for example, single-lane on-ramps feeding a two-lane highway, traffic between the ramps will be limited to how fast it can go, especially as you add more traffic. On the other hand, a four-lane highway with single-lane ramps will move a lot more smoothly. If you then have a four-lane off-ramp to the downtown, all that traffic can flow steadily into your downtown.

 

In your case above, the switch you're using probably has limited capacity on its backplane, and that's where things are choking up. Changing it to an all-gigabit switch won't NECESSARILY help anything without looking at and improving the width of the backplane.

[alpine0000 0]

Click on image for full resolution. Like I said, the frame rate (#4 in the photo) goes from 0 to at least once every 124 seconds, then I stopped trying.

 

[Louie 0]

First off thank you for all the information you've been providing me this morning. I think I've learned more today then what these reps have been feeding me for a month. I will google backplane since it is a new concept to me. I understood the analogy the gave, but i guess I need to understand if there is different levels or tiers of backplanes. I'm wondering if I could get a gigabit switch with a wide backplane that would be more than sufficient to support 16 megapixel cameras for under 1k. Any suggestions? Thank you guys for all the help again Louie

[Soundy 1]

I went to Cisco's site and compared the SF200-24P and it's all-gigabit big brother, the SG200-26P:

 

 

Note the Performance ratings - 8.8 gigabits per second is the SF200's "backplane capacity", which is WAY more than enough for your needs, especially since you're not really moving data between the camera ports, but 95% of your data will all be going to the server's gigabit port.

 

The SG retails for around $600... the SF for a bit under $400. You could spend the extra $200 for the all-gigabit model, but you really wouldn't gain anything from it.

[fa chris 0]

Have had good luck with Arecont cameras on HP Procurve switches.

 

HP ProCurve Switch 2610-24-PWR with a Gigabit port. Has 24 PoE 10/100 ports and a gigabit uplink for your server. Can take mini-gbics if you want to run fiber between multiple switches. Has 77watts of power for the devices.

[hardwired 0]

I went to Cisco's site and compared the SF200-24P and it's all-gigabit big brother, the SG200-26P:

 

 

Note the Performance ratings - 8.8 gigabits per second is the SF200's "backplane capacity", which is WAY more than enough for your needs, especially since you're not really moving data between the camera ports, but 95% of your data will all be going to the server's gigabit port.

 

The SG retails for around $600... the SF for a bit under $400. You could spend the extra $200 for the all-gigabit model, but you really wouldn't gain anything from it.

Those are only 12 port PoE, though, he would have to go to the 48 port, which would give 24 PoE ports.

 

Also, those capacity ratings are for 64 Byte packets, which are the worst-case scenario for a switch, video packets are usually far larger, and don't load switch capability nearly as hard. I use the 8-port version of these models frequently, and I've been happy with them.

[Louie 0]

The POE switch I worked with was the Etherwan EX17242. Can this POE switch even handle what I'm trying to do with it? View 16 megapixel cameras, locally and remotely? Does it even have a backplane? Is this what could be bogging down the system? Called Etherwan tech. and he couldn't give me a straight answer!!!

[Soundy 1]

The POE switch I worked with was the Etherwan EX17242. Can this POE switch even handle what I'm trying to do with it? View 16 megapixel cameras, locally and remotely? Does it even have a backplane? Is this what could be bogging down the system? Called Etherwan tech. and he couldn't give me a straight answer!!!

Looking at the specs on that, it lists about 1.5Mpps (packets per second) throughput... the Ciscos I listed above state 6.55 and 38.69Mpps. So yeah, it looks like the backplane of that Etherwan switch is a serious bottleneck for the amount of data you're chunking through it (remember, the backplane in my analogy above is the main highway that connects all the on- and off-ramps together, so yes, that's a necessary part of the switch... in this case, your backplane amounts to a dirt horse trail).

 

Those are only 12 port PoE, though, he would have to go to the 48 port, which would give 24 PoE ports.

Ahh, good catch, I missed that.

 

I use the 8-port version of these models frequently, and I've been happy with them.

We've been using the Cisco SFE-1000P previously (eight 10/100 PoE ports, two gigabit combo ports), now replaced by the SF302-08P, and also been very happy with them. These are a full managed switch as well. AND they have far higher switching capacity than the Etherwan - 4.17Mpps/5.6Gbps.

[thewireguys 3]

The POE switch I worked with was the Etherwan EX17242. Can this POE switch even handle what I'm trying to do with it? View 16 megapixel cameras, locally and remotely? Does it even have a backplane? Is this what could be bogging down the system? Called Etherwan tech. and he couldn't give me a straight answer!!!

 

Louie what is your total bandwidth coming into the your NVR?

[Louie 0]

Not sure what the total bandwidth is at the moment. Haven't returned to the job site in a while due to the holiday's. Will be returning this week, hopefully. Thanks for all the help again everybody. Louie

[Louie 0]

What is the best way of checking to see what is the most accurate way of checking my NVR's bandwidth is?

[Soundy 1]

If it's a Windows-based system, you can get a fair idea by pulling up the Task Manager and looking at the Networking tab.

 

Otherwise: http://www.wireshark.org/

[ssmith10pn 0]

DU Meter.

 

[danger_e 0]

I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, but we've been successfully using the TrendNET TPE-224WS:

 

http://www.trendnet.com/products/proddetail.asp?prod=130_TPE-224WS&cat=58

 

It's got 24 10/100 PoE ports and 4 Gig ports. We've been pretty happy with them (I don't recall any issues) and the price point is lower than Cisco's.