Need help choosing new system for home.

[Kawboy12R 0]

I understand your points, or at least I think I do. I was more of a programmer than network technician in university and I basically just dabble in computers now. It's hard to say exactly without you writing a looong explanation because if you don't then I have to fill in your blanks. Do you understand why I question the "need" for a computer with two NICs when most likely 99.99% of all network camera traffic will be between the cams, dedicated camera switch, and a standalone NVR? Unless my understanding of network traffic and the OP's intended homeowner-oriented use is way off base, the way I suggested doing it the router will probably see a very small amount of camera traffic unless remote viewing on something other than the NVR is common. While isolating the cam system to a separate subnet has advantages, don't you consider them offset quite a bit by requiring that an otherwise unnecessary computer be up and running all the time in order to take advantage of many of them?

 

Now, if the NVR *WAS* a computer (not a standalone) and had to be on 24/7 anyway, then I see no real problem and quite a few advantages in doing a 2 NIC solution. For just running a few cams it probably isn't required, but the effort and small cost expended up front might save some problems down the road, assuming that the homeowner can install the card and get things reconfigured relatively easily.

 

If I'm missing something here or weighting pros/cons incorrectly please point it out.

[Stereodude 0]

still looking for some help since there seems to be so much debate.

Why don't you try it both ways and see what works best for you?

 

My guess is you won't find a noticeable difference between them.

[blakem 0]

Why don't you try it both ways and see what works best for you?

 

My guess is you won't find a noticeable difference between them.

 

I'd agree. I think having a dedicated network might scale better for adding more cameras later but with 4 cameras you probably won't notice much difference in performance.

[low56 0]

Ok. Thanks everyone for the help.

[buellwinkle 0]

While other's dabble, I actually configured complex networks with $5,000 switches for massively parallel computer systems as part of my job. While different options will "work" not all will do so optimally. So far you have several people telling you to connect the cameras and NVR to the switch, one person telling you the opposite. Maybe if he shared his professional credentials as a network engineer that may help prove his case.

[Stereodude 0]

While other's dabble, I actually configured complex networks with $5,000 switches for massively parallel computer systems as part of my job. While different options will "work" not all will do so optimally. So far you have several people telling you to connect the cameras and NVR to the switch, one person telling you the opposite. Maybe if he shared his professional credentials as a network engineer that may help prove his case.

You said that would slow down his entire home network. So, I decided to test your hypothesis.

 

I tested using a consumer grade router with a gigabit switch similar to the OP's. Saturating a 100Mbit link (~90Mbits/sec) between two ports on the switch did not slow down other traffic through the switch. I measured 921Mbits/sec between two gigabit endpoints while the saturated 100Mbit link was pushing traffic through the switch. With the 100Mbit link removed from the switch I measured 918Mbits/sec between the same two gigabit endpoints.

 

So much for that theory...

[buellwinkle 0]

The OP does not have a gigabit switch, he already stated the model, it's 100Mbps. Also, the question you brought up is a connection between the switch and a PC that are each only connected through the router. What you proved is what most of us has said all along, keep the traffic between the NVR and the cameras on the switch.

[Stereodude 0]

The OP does not have a gigabit switch, he already stated the model, it's 100Mbps.

That's just not true. His Asus router has a four port gigabit switch in it. Yes, his PoE switch is 100Mbps.

 

Also, the question you brought up is a connection between the switch and a PC that are each only connected through the router. What you proved is what most of us has said all along, keep the traffic between the NVR and the cameras on the switch.

That's quite the interesting spin you're trying to put on things after I directly disproved your claims.

 

I said it didn't matter if he connected the PoE switch to his router's switch and then connected the NVR to the router's switch or if he connected the NVR directly to the PoE switch and also connected the PoE switch to his router's switch. You said that connecting the NVR to his PoE switch through his router's switch would slow down his home network. I proved that a saturated 100Mbit link going through the switch in a consumer router like the OP's would not slow down his network.

[buellwinkle 0]

OK, maybe I misunderstood. So you took a 100Mbps switch, put 90Mbps workload through it, you connected your PC to a different router/switch that is Gige and connected the two switches together and the speed is about the same. I'll give you that, why would it be different, you haven't added your normal router network traffic. Is that spin, maybe, but I think it's what I brought from the start, the added traffic on the router would affect your existing router use, not the cameras.

 

Besides the 90Mbps from the cameras, now I'm watching an HD movie on Netflix, kids are downloading music from iTunes and my wife is picking up her emails and all PCs are backing up to my backup NAS, my 4 Tivos/DVRs are getting live schedule updates, my thermostat is sending IP traffic to it's mother ship and my tablet are receiving podcast and software updates regularly, some as large as few hundred MB.

[low56 0]

I think out of convenience I will connect my cameras to my POE switch as well as my NVR to my switch and then a single Cat5e connection to my home router since I only have one port left. If things slow down then I may need to rethink things.

[Stereodude 0]

OK, maybe I misunderstood. So you took a 100Mbps switch, put 90Mbps workload through it, you connected your PC to a different router/switch that is Gige and connected the two switches together and the speed is about the same. I'll give you that, why would it be different, you haven't added your normal router network traffic. Is that spin, maybe, but I think it's what I brought from the start, the added traffic on the router would affect your existing router use, not the cameras.

No, that's not what I did. The scenario you're describing above makes no sense to test. I tested your claim that moving a large amount of traffic between two ports on the switch in his router would slow down other traffic through the switch in the router.

 

I moved 90Mbit/sec from port 2 to port 3 (simulating the PoE switch to NVR connection in the router's switch) and simultaneously moved 900+Mbit/sec from port 1 to port 4. The 90Mbit/sec moving between port 2 and port 3 had no impact on 900+Mbit/sec data transfer speed between port 1 and port 4. There was no slow down from the simulated camera to NVR traffic going through the router's switch.

[blakem 0]

I think out of convenience I will connect my cameras to my POE switch as well as my NVR to my switch and then a single Cat5e connection to my home router since I only have one port left. If things slow down then I may need to rethink things.

 

I think that sounds like a reasonable plan. When you start adding more cameras you may need to rethink but it should be good for now.

[ak357 0]

OK, maybe I misunderstood. So you took a 100Mbps switch, put 90Mbps workload through it, you connected your PC to a different router/switch that is Gige and connected the two switches together and the speed is about the same. I'll give you that, why would it be different, you haven't added your normal router network traffic. Is that spin, maybe, but I think it's what I brought from the start, the added traffic on the router would affect your existing router use, not the cameras.

No, that's not what I did. The scenario you're describing above makes no sense to test. I tested your claim that moving a large amount of traffic between two ports on the switch in his router would slow down other traffic through the switch in the router.

 

I moved 90Mbit/sec from port 2 to port 3 (simulating the PoE switch to NVR connection in the router's switch) and simultaneously moved 900+Mbit/sec from port 1 to port 4. The 90Mbit/sec moving between port 2 and port 3 had no impact on 900+Mbit/sec data transfer speed between port 1 and port 4. There was no slow down from the simulated camera to NVR traffic going through the router's switch.

 

Hmm ,may be I should send you very interesting "adapters"

its Ethernet over coax

here is what will happen

If I disconnect coax from adapter it WILL kill every port

(meaning every camera on network is DEAD

this is just small example

also try to put camera on RTSP and see if u like your local LAN performance.

my point still the same

keep traffic separate

its simple to do and right way to do it

No decent IT person will allow me to put IP cameras on their network

always separate subnets

[Stereodude 0]

Hmm ,may be I should send you very interesting "adapters"

its Ethernet over coax

here is what will happen

If I disconnect coax from adapter it WILL kill every port

(meaning every camera on network is DEAD

this is just small example

also try to put camera on RTSP and see if u like your local LAN performance.

my point still the same

keep traffic separate

its simple to do and right way to do it

No decent IT person will allow me to put IP cameras on their network

always separate subnets

I'd bet these rules of thumb originated in the days of token ring and when everyone used hubs not switches. Many of the concerns people had may not be valid any more, but the "rules" are still followed.

 

It I was doing IT at a business I wouldn't want them on the same network either due to security concerns. I wouldn't want someone to be able to unplug a camera, plug in a PC and have access to the network. At the least I would want to have them on their own VLAN if they shared a physical switch. Putting them on their own physically separate network would allow for the camera network to have it's own backup power and other potential advantages. They're also protecting themselves from a "what if" scenario and blame later. I get that.

 

However, the point still remains that a few camera moving traffic between two ports on a switch isn't going to slow down other data moving through the same switch. Even with a relatively low end consumer grade switch.

[voip-ninja 0]

OK, maybe I misunderstood. So you took a 100Mbps switch, put 90Mbps workload through it, you connected your PC to a different router/switch that is Gige and connected the two switches together and the speed is about the same. I'll give you that, why would it be different, you haven't added your normal router network traffic. Is that spin, maybe, but I think it's what I brought from the start, the added traffic on the router would affect your existing router use, not the cameras.

No, that's not what I did. The scenario you're describing above makes no sense to test. I tested your claim that moving a large amount of traffic between two ports on the switch in his router would slow down other traffic through the switch in the router.

 

I moved 90Mbit/sec from port 2 to port 3 (simulating the PoE switch to NVR connection in the router's switch) and simultaneously moved 900+Mbit/sec from port 1 to port 4. The 90Mbit/sec moving between port 2 and port 3 had no impact on 900+Mbit/sec data transfer speed between port 1 and port 4. There was no slow down from the simulated camera to NVR traffic going through the router's switch.

 

Hmm ,may be I should send you very interesting "adapters"

its Ethernet over coax

here is what will happen

If I disconnect coax from adapter it WILL kill every port

(meaning every camera on network is DEAD

this is just small example

also try to put camera on RTSP and see if u like your local LAN performance.

my point still the same

keep traffic separate

its simple to do and right way to do it

No decent IT person will allow me to put IP cameras on their network

always separate subnets

 

One of my previous jobs was engineering data networks for voice over IP environments. Generally speaking, the reason for doing any segregation in the network is to limit performance impacts at large uplink points. This is not normally a concern in the home network where the cameras are simply feeding via a switch into a single device on the same switch (NVR or NAS).

 

Switches have a maximum backplane speed (maximum number of frames or packets per second of switching). Theoretically, even if your cameras were all sending a big fat 20Mbps signal, they could all aggregate to the NVR/NAS with ZERO performance on the rest of the network.... because even cheap consumer switches now have backplanes that are much faster than the sum of all their ports.

 

In cases such as the OP described I think the most logical thing to do is connect the cameras and NVR to the PoE switch and simply plug that into the main hub/router. Even if the link speed negotiated is only 100mb on that uplink it should not impact the performance of the rest of the gigabit switch that is in the primary residence router.

 

Bottom line, I think that the idea of splitting into two networks in a home network is overkill in almost all cases unless there are justified concerns about bandwidth within the home network (due to other applications, etc) or there is a security concern.

 

Sometimes, as an installer, it is nice to know that a given portion of a small network is for "cameras" or "phones" or whatever so that if there's a problem later you can quickly narrow it down. Typically this would simply be done with different subnets or VLANs, you can get some pretty nice small router/firewall combos these days for under $300 (Sonicwall is pretty good).