9 to 12 2MP IP cameras and I may need a better video card...

[stroonzo 0]

I have been evaluating Digifort Enterprise for about 10 days. The following system and setup have been configured for the evaluation:

 

Server:

Intel S1200BTSR Server Board

Xeon E3 1240 V2 Ivy Bridge (four core, eight thread) @ 3.4 Ghz per core

ECC RAM

96 GB Kingston Hyper X SSD

2 x 3 TB Seagate 7200 RPM in RAID 0 (6 TB video volume)

Windows 7 Pro 32 bit (recommended to run Digifort)

Integrated on-board video

Intel 82574L Gb Network Adapter

 

Client:

Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33 Ghz per core

Intel SSD

Nvidia 8600GT (old)

4GB RAM

Windows 7 Pro 64

 

Cameras:

9 x Dahua IPC-HDB3200CN 2.0 Megapixel CMOS, 30fps @1080P, POE

 

Switch:

Cisco WS-C3560G-24PS (POE, Gigabit, running the latest IOS)

 

I have the bitstream of al cameras jacked up to the highest setting at 8Kbps

 

The server just eats this up. My friend is running an almost identical setup but with 12 cameras. My 9 camera system doesn't phase the Xeon E3 1240 V2. My CPU utilization hovers only around 16%

 

Now the client workstation is a whole other deal. Yes, it is a rather old CPU that benchmarks significantly lower than my new Xeon based server. However, it holds up very well in viewing all channels in the D1 substream. There is no problem there.

 

It isn't until I client-select a single camera in live view and it opens up in all of its glory at full blown 2MP, 8Kbps, 30fps that the skippy video begins to show.

 

In addition, playback of a camera crawls (instead of having skipping frames).

 

So cutting to the point of the post....

 

I have tested various scenarios and have determined without much doubt this is simply a decoding bottleneck.

 

My question is - does anyone have any opinion on the success with a new nVidia Purevideo HD (5th Generation) GPU solving or helping with this h264 bottleneck?

 

I figured it would help my poor Core2 Quad viewing station deal with the massive data stream coming into it. While my 9600GT has Purevideo generation 2 built into it (supporting full gpu decoding of h264) it is rather dated and since been significantly improved in all generations following it.

 

Sure, I can throw raw CPU at it. If I use my server as a viewer (even with the lack luster integrated graphics), the problem is almost gone completely. On the other hand, i could lower the bit rate, fps, or resolution. But then I ask - WHY buy such nice equipment to just lower the quality?

 

I just do not need a Xeon based workstation. Rather I was hoping a new GPU with the 5th generation Purevideo HD (like the nVidia GT 640 or better) would solve my issue. If a new GPU could solve my issue, I would rather do that. If not, I may be building a new client workstation on the same Xeon chip AND with my new GPU I will be buying to test on my current workstation.

 

Does anyone have any experience with my situation?

[Soundy 1]

I have tested various scenarios and have determined without much doubt this is simply a decoding bottleneck.

I believe you are correct. Have you tested this scenario: run the server on the Core2 machine and the client on the Xeon?

 

It's somewhat dependent on the NVR software, but in general, simply receiving the network stream and writing it do disk takes very little processor power; other members here have built 16-channel Exacq NVRs out of Atom-based machines.

 

A wigged-out GPU on the client will only be effective if the client can take advantage of it... otherwise, the client is where you really need the processing power, because in most cases (can't speak for this software specifically) it's what's actually doing the decoding... not the server. The server generally just pulls the video stream off the disk and spits it back out - again, very little processor work required there.

[ssnapier 0]

Yeah the video card makes a HUGE difference on playback... I am actually swapping out a client's GPU next week because of a similar issue (using Mobotix Control Center). Everything is good until they have to playback full size/ full frame video and then it goes berzerk.

[stroonzo 0]

Swapping the server for the viewer client isn't a good option for me since my server is running VMWare and the Digifort Server is one of a few other VMs.

 

Moreover, a friend with the same server setup has an identical viewer client as the server and he has the same issue.

 

I think Digifort (what is supposed ot be the BEST NVR so I am am told) just isn't coded to work directly with nVidia Purevideo HD and take advantage of the h264 decoding it can do.

 

I see that Eyesoft's NVR package supports nVidia. I may build myself a VM to test this out since it is a client / server NVR.

[Soundy 1]

"Best" is subjective, especially since what's "best" for one situations won't always be "best" for another.

 

That said, I'm not aware of any VMSes that are specifically designed to take advantage of any GPU - doesn't mean they don't exist, but realistically, NVRs/VMSes have been doing this for years without needing high-end video cards. I'd suggest looking elsewhere for the source of your problem, possibly disk I/O on your server.

 

For that matter, there's a good chance it just doesn't like running in VMware.

[hardwired 0]

Full frame decoding, especially H.264, tends to put a pretty heavy load on the video processing. As Soundy mentioned, NVR software that uses camera side motion detection can be very light on processor resources, but displaying that video is another story.

 

I would suggest trying a better video card in the client, and in a non-VM environment, GPU virtualization is still a little sketchy.

[thewireguys 3]

We just started a 11 camera Avigilon MP system (four 180s, six 5MP, one 3MP) and I am using a Atom based client machine hookup up to a 32inch LED monitor for a spot monitor. I have also build sold and tested many Atom based NVRs that can handle 10-15 cameras no problem. If you need a solution with less CPU requirements switch VMS/cameras.