Multi Site IP Camera Solution - Advice

[bazinlondon 0]

Hi All

 

Please HELP.

 

I'm seeking some advice to which solution I can go down. I have 32 sites where I'm looking to have between 4-8 IP camera's set up in each. I only need to remotely access the file recording so I can download onto a seperate hard drive. Just to reiterorate I simply need to upload video recordings. I'm thinking I will have a NAS drive at each site that I can connect to remotely to do this.

 

Please let me know if this is what you would do and if not what would you recommend?

[dexterash 0]

Get a PRO to help you!

[bazinlondon 0]

If Someone can provide more useful advice it wouldn't go a miss.

[blakem 0]

You are wanting to manually remote into each NAS and download a specific file(recording)? That should be possible. You could set it up to automatically push new recordings to the main site but you will need big bandwidth to upload all recordings assuming these are megapixel cameras. You will need to use the raw video viewer for your band of camera when viewing the files.

[Razer_SE 0]

In theory that will work, but it will not be so easy to setup I don't think. You will still need a local computer to access camera settings through via VNC or something, and to be able to see the cameras during setup and such. At that point you might as well have a PC based NVR in most cases.

 

There are exceptions of course, and I'm sure someone will have a solution that might work with a Synology NAS or something.

 

In my case I have a DVR/NVR at each location and just use my software locally to access and pull footage as needed from each machine. I have 50ish separate remote sites now with 2-23 cameras each all managed from my laptop really. I'll be at 70ish sites by the end of the year. I use Exacq, but there are other great options like Avigilon that handle that many sites very well.

[GMaster1 0]

I almost feel like 32 NAS boxes is a headache waiting to happen. Also the actual files that you would be transferring from each NAS would probably be more bandwidth than to just stream each camera to one (or a few) source(s).

 

Is there a 4-8 channel NVR box that allows you to connect and record to it from the outside? If so, that would be my recommendation assuming it can consolidate the streams at each site to reduce total bandwidth at each site. However if that method really doesn't reduce bandwidth, then 32 sites with 4-8 cameras... 12-20MB/second. Jjust make sure your main site has a fancy internet connection on it.

 

I guess my whole point is 32 hard drive driven boxes is a lot to maintain after a little while.

[thewireguys 3]

This can be done very easy. If you value your time I would skip the NAS boxes and go with a VMS like Exacq or Avigilon. With Exacq you can use SD cards in the cameras and skip the NVRs all together. We have many projects with customers that have multiple remote sites and Avigilon handles everything very well. One customer alone has 87+ locations with multiple HD cameras at each site.

[GMaster1 0]

This can be done very easy. If you value your time I would skip the NAS boxes and go with a VMS like Exacq or Avigilon. With Exacq you can use SD cards in the cameras and skip the NVRs all together. We have many projects with customers that have multiple remote sites and Avigilon handles everything very well. One customer alone has 87+ locations with multiple HD cameras at each site.

 

Out of curiosity what do you do then with the VMS box? Is that sitting at one location and all cams point to that?

[thewireguys 3]

We have custom built micro servers at each site and the client machine connects to all sites so they can see all the cameras on the video wall.

[GMaster1 0]

Makes sense -- I figure the servers at each location are used as a gateway to also reduce bandwidth between the site and HQ?

[Razer_SE 0]

Yes, this solution thewireguys has is the same that I would recommend and is how I do it too.

 

We thought about trying to stream all the video back to one source but the amount of bandwidth and storage I'd need is staggering really. So for example now a site with a local VMS can record and store as much as I want and it will never use an single bit of data until I access it to either remotely view a camera or pull some video footage. Works perfectly fine, and is very reliable.

 

I have a video wall rotating some cameras from every site though, so in my case I do use data all the time. For most users this is not needed though I suppose.

 

I put VNC on my servers so I have full remote control of them as needed to access camera settings that might not be available to adjust remotely. I also have a UPS with an NMC card in it so I can remotely reboot and such as needed, and lastly I have a powerstone device that pings the internet every so often, if internet is lost it will then automatically power cycle the modem and router and try again. This way my internet connections are virtually never down and no one even has to visit for simple stuff!

[thewireguys 3]

I put VNC on my servers so I have full remote control of them as needed to access camera settings that might not be available to adjust remotely.

 

I totally forgot that you have to log into the web interface of the cameras to adjust settings.... I don't miss that at all

[Razer_SE 0]

Yeah, not a ton of fun but I very rarely have to adjust one of those settings. Usually my default config of the cameras works fine, but I might occasionally need to tweak WDR or something odd that requires me to log in and adjust in the web interface. Not all that bad though overall.

[thewireguys 3]

Logging into hundreds of cameras web interfaces is neither fun or efficient... How do you handle all the firmware updates for your cameras? That has to take FOREVER

[Razer_SE 0]

I use the manufacturer utility to upgrade all the cameras firmware at once, though rarely do I bother as the cameras usually are working fine as they are. If I am working on a site for some reason I would upgrade if I'd ever had any issues, but I rarely have issues so it's not a big deal. I would upgrade if I was adding a new camera at a site that was the same model with a newer firmware as I like them all to match for example, but normally the cameras are working fine and there is no need to mess with them.

 

Using ACTi for example, I see all cameras at once in the utility, choose them all and select the firmware and hit upgrade and it does them all and I don't have to do a thing.

 

With Avigilion I can adjust all camera settings, on an ACTi or Vivotek or Axis for example, in the remote console? That would be nice I can see, and is a very cool feature. Being able to adjust events in the cameras event server and the like would be awesome.

[thewireguys 3]

With Avigilon and Avigilon's cameras you have full control from the client software and firmware/client upgrades are pushed out from the server.

[bazinlondon 0]

so to confirm

 

With your recommendation of VMS. Does their still need to be a NVR at each site?

 

I'm looking to reduce hardware costs. However I would intially like to go down the route of having lower nedeed bandwidth at each site.

 

If I were to download footage remotely from NVR. Where will the internet need to be good? Is it at the site with NVR or the remote site where I'm downloading file

[Razer_SE 0]

Yes, there is an NVR at each site. The hardware cost is minimal really, I am building my smaller IP only Exacq systems and only purchasing by larger systems that need analog cameras. The ones I purchase are expensive, but the ones that I build are actually quite cheap. I'm building them for under $500 and they are working perfectly. I build i3 systems with 4gb of ram and at least 1tb of drive space, usually 2tb. I only record on motion so I don't usually need more than 2tb.

 

My bandwidth usage is minimal, I actually use wireless data cards with cradlepoint routers so I'm limited to 5gb or 10gb a month depending on the plan. That causes no issues and for me results in the best speed too as virtually all of them are 4g LTE connections so I get good upload speeds of like 10-14mb at the remote site. Really, the upload speed at the remote is the most important, usually with a standard cable connection around here anyway you get 20mb down and 4mb up. The 20 down does the property no good at all as there is no one there to use any of it in most cases, all I ever use is the upload speed when I am pulling something remotely. So the average standard cable connection will be fine for you accessing the sites as it is faster than they will ever upload at in most cases. If you are not pulling video then you are using no bandwidth.

 

At $500 you have as much in the hardware of the NVR as you would in a good NAS device. One license plate camera actually costs me more lol! I have to add in my license costs in my case, but you will have that in some form no matter what you chose.

[bazinlondon 0]

Thanks for advice Razor. Do you live in the UK by any chance.

 

So We have 30 sites. Each of which we will have an NVR/NAS. This is so we reduce the need for bandwidth. Just to be clear we will only need to upload files remotely from that NVR/NAS. So hopefully this won't use up to much bandwidth. The reason I was thinking of getting a synology NAS with inbuilt Surveillance manager is because you can add lots of memory to it and we will need a lot and because you can set up back up hard drive on it. (Raid)

 

If not which NVR would you recommend.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Regards

Baz

[Razer_SE 0]

I am in the US unfortunately.

 

You are in the same boat as me, my video storage is local on my properties, the only time I ever use any bandwidth at all is when I have to access video stored there, then it is uploaded to me and I save it locally for review or to send to police.

 

In my case, I access and look at video, then select what time frame and cameras I need, then that is downloaded in a single file to me via my Exacq NVR software that I personally use. I build a normal desktop computer and just add hard drives as needed for my storage. Not sure what your requirements are for storage amounts and backups and such so your needs may differ. For me at my locations 2gb recording only on motion will get me 90 days even at a busier location with 8-10 ip cameras.

[thewireguys 3]

For our customer with 87 locations and megapixel cameras at each site we built custom small servers with SSDs for the OS and a hardrive for storage at each site that fit into temperature controlled NEMA boxes. Everything is housed inside the NEMA boxes so all we have to do onsite is mount the box, run cat5 to the cameras and hook up power. Since we used Avigilon even though all systems are connected via cable connection searching is still very fast and there is no need to download video to review it. You simply switch to recorded mode in the client software and you see all motion events then scrub or search your recorded video.

[bazinlondon 0]

Thanks for insight!

 

I have no experience or intention to build computer as this is all complicated enough for a novice! Can I ask how long it tool you to upload the biggest size file you had too! I will need quite fast upload!

[thewireguys 3]

You mean upload a file from your remote site to your viewing station?

[bazinlondon 0]

Yeah. And at my viewing station I will want to save onto my own hard drive

[Razer_SE 0]

What specifically are you planning on uploading, all video or just when an event occurs?

 

If you want literally all video I would advise against that as the bandwidth requirements and storage requirements are huge. If each site you had only recorded 100mb a day, and you have 50 sites, it sure adds up quickly! If you are only accessing and downloading events as they happen you want to search first and then download only the video that you need and that will vary depending on each event, how many cameras got something, how long the event took etc. I had a break in last year where they were onsite for two hours so there was a lot of video to get, then I have had events with less than 3 minutes of footage. Downloading one took a while, the other was almost instant.

 

You are limited by the upload speed at the remote site almost always.