CPU needed for 8 1080P IP Cameras

[mrted46 0]

I am going to install a total of 8 IP cameras:

4 x Dahua IPC-HFW3300C (3 Megapixel)

4 x Dahua IPC-HDB3200C (2 Megapixel)

 

I am going to build a dedicated PC to monitor/record/motion detection.

 

Will an Intel i5 (Ivy bridge, i5-3570K) suffice for this?

 

I am leaning towards using BlueIris software (never used this before) for this, any feedback on this?

 

PS I hope i posted this question in the right place

[dexterash 0]

On what do you want to display those cameras?

[mrted46 0]

On what do you want to display those cameras?

 

Through LAN and WAN (iphone)

[MaxIcon 0]

The Blue Iris community forum at cam-it.org has a lot of data on CPU vs camera load, and what affects it, so you might want to go there for more info on that solution. You can also download a demo version, but can't run direct to disk on the demo. Everything else works the same, I believe.

 

I'm using BI on an i5-3570k, built a few months ago to allow more cams than my old system. BI recently had some upgrades that lowered CPU utilization. This is what I'm running currently:

 

9 cams, 11 MP total, 10 fps, motion detect with 25 pre-trigger frames.

On BI 3.23.05, I see 55% CPU when it's idle, spiking up to 70-75% with multiple cameras recording, without direct to disk enabled.

 

You're looking at 20 MP total, so this box wouldn't handle your load at 10 fps with my setup. Direct to disk recording reduces the CPU load, but i haven't tested this yet. There's a big thread on it over at the forum, though.

 

A few cam-it members have ordered i7 boxes to see if the extra threads help performance, but there's no data on it yet.

 

Another alternative would be an Aver NV6240 or NV6480 in a lower power PC, which would handle this load with no problem, but the cards are expensive new. I've got some detail on performance in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=220180#p220180

 

Others will have to pitch in on other software; these are the only 2 I have experience with.

[hasinarshad 0]

Makes more sense to get a dahua 3208 nvr, you'll avoid a lot of hair tearing further down the line

Only downside is that the nvr will record at a max for 2mp.

[MaxIcon 0]

Yeah, there's a lot to be said for a dedicated NVR. You gain reliability and simplicity, but lose flexibility.

 

One important consideration with dedicated boxes is to check the maximum bit rate or MP they'll handle. Some 8 channel NVRs won't let you populate it completely with 1080p cams.

[buellwinkle 0]

The latest release of BlueIris with direct to disk recording has made a big difference for me. Where I was pushing 60-80% with 3 cameras on an i3-540, it's now running 4 cameras at about 20-30% CPU. Cameras area all Dahua, 3MP, 1080P and 2 1.3MP. I'm running 15fps as I find that more than adequate to get reasonably smooth video while preserving storage and processor capacity.

 

Clearly the Dahua NVR makes most sense if you don't plan on straying from the brand. Many of us that run BI do so because we have multiple brands of cameras or we change camera brands as the latest trend blows though the forum

[recordit 0]

Does anyone have recommended pre-built PC's or builds? I was considering building one from scratch on Newegg.

 

I purchased (4) Swanns with the intention of building a PC with BI, but I realized I could save a boatload by purchasing the Lorex 8-channel 4 camera system w/NVR. This was before I got an update for BI which appears to considerably lower the CPU usage so I could build a lessor system (I was under the impression I needed an i7 before.) I also read a review from 3 days ago about the Lorex system having motion detection issues (too sensitive.)

 

I now have both of these and am trying to determine which I should return:

(2) http://www.costco.com/Swann-1080p-2-Pack-NVR-IP-Bullet-Cameras.product.100039914.html

(1) http://www.costco.com/Lorex-8-Channel-Full-HD-PoE-NVR-Security-System-with-2TB-Hard-Drive-and-4-HD-1080p-Cameras.product.100035609.html

 

It's critical to me that I upload footage/images offsite to ensure if NVC or PC is compromised I have a remote backup. This seems to be much easier via BI.

[zikronix 0]

Does anyone have recommended pre-built PC's or builds? I was considering building one from scratch on Newegg.

 

I purchased (4) Swanns with the intention of building a PC with BI, but I realized I could save a boatload by purchasing the Lorex 8-channel 4 camera system w/NVR. This was before I got an update for BI which appears to considerably lower the CPU usage so I could build a lessor system (I was under the impression I needed an i7 before.) I also read a review from 3 days ago about the Lorex system having motion detection issues (too sensitive.)

 

I now have both of these and am trying to determine which I should return:

(2) http://www.costco.com/Swann-1080p-2-Pack-NVR-IP-Bullet-Cameras.product.100039914.html

(1) http://www.costco.com/Lorex-8-Channel-Full-HD-PoE-NVR-Security-System-with-2TB-Hard-Drive-and-4-HD-1080p-Cameras.product.100035609.html

 

It's critical to me that I upload footage/images offsite to ensure if NVC or PC is compromised I have a remote backup. This seems to be much easier via BI.

 

 

Ill price out what I was looking at

 

Super Micro Bare Bones

Open box version

Xeon-E3 1240 Ivy Bridge

16 GB ECC Memory

Open Box version

Just add Harddrive of your choice.

 

 

Gonna need a POE switch. Im partial to cisco products especially cause they make a quiet switch with no fan. If you don't care how loud the switch is you can get a 3550 for about 120.00 but they are loud! and if you want gigabit prepare to pay a penny for it! Here it is its the only fanless more than 8 port cisco makes.

SF200-24P (only 12 POE)

 

Just add Harddrive of your choice.

 

[Note: This is a server class machine, there may not be windows 7 drivers for it and the win 2008 drivers may not run under win 7. I have copies of Server 2008 so this was a non issue for me]

 

This is what I was going to build...until I learned that apparently this may not be big enough to run BI on 8 cameras @ 1080p / 6122K / 20-30 FPS

 

Which prompted my question of why in the hell is BI so processor intensive vs other vms and pc based nvr...never got a real solid answer on that other than maturity. Im not bashing bi in any way shape or form, just trying to figure out why some of this software is thousands of dollars which makes BI sound like something billy mays would be selling on late night tv...LOL. I would love to run bi, im going to actually install it on my pc and see how it does. this will give me a baseline if I need a bigger box!

Edited May 17, 2013 by Guest

[dexterash 0]

Question: has anyone tried playback of recordings? How many cameras, in sync, can be displayed and at what quality?

[zikronix 0]

Question: has anyone tried playback of recordings? How many cameras, in sync, can be displayed and at what quality?

 

from what? bi, or like one of the swann systems?

[dexterash 0]

BI, of course

[buellwinkle 0]

With direct recording, there's no processing of the image by BI so the quality is exactly what you specified from the camera. Without direct recording, it has to recompress the image to it's own format and it can be jittery and requires tweaking to make it perfect.

 

BI can only play back one camera at a time, not like most other software that plays back multiple cameras at the same time. I love that ability as I like to be able to see people moving around, transitioning from one camera to another but it's not a deal breaker for me given it's other features and price point.

[zikronix 0]

BI, of course

 

This is what I was told by maxicon when I inquired about BI. He does admit this is theory and not necessarily fact...but it seems logical

 

BI displays all the cameras all the time, while Aver only displays the ones you select in the matrix. Also, I believe the Aver always has done direct to disk recording, but that's a hard thing to verify. Running BI in direct to disk mode may improve CPU closer to the Aver usage.

 

After observing these differences, I posted this theory at cam-it, and someone else requested direct to disk recording based on it, so the results indicate there's some truth to it.

 

Also, Aver's a big company, this software supports a bunch of their systems, and they've been working on it for years now. It may have a more efficient codec, allowing lower CPU use. BI's not as mature, though it has lots more features.

[Q2U 0]

I just purchased this machine for $684.00. The processor is an i7-3770 Quad-core, 3.4GHz. This is a very powerful CPU. I am currently running Blue Iris with 8 IP cameras (14 total Megapixels). 6 cameras are running at 5FPS/4096 Bitrate and 2 cameras are running 10FPS/6144 Bitrate. My "idle" processor usage is between 10% to 14%. My CPU usage rise when motion is detected and recording starts, but I do not have any data on this yet.

 

Building a machine is a lot of fun, but I don't believe that you'll be able to come close to the specs of this machine, especially considering the 90-day return policy, the 2-year warrranty and the modern 64-bit OS which is included. Yes Win8 suQs, but you'll get used to it. Yes, the plastic case suQs, but does that really matter. Yes the 300-watt power supply is small but I'm using it as a dedicated Blue Iris server. Yes, it is loaded with BloatWare but you can download Revo Uninstaller Pro 30-day trial and remove it all which is what I did.

 

This machine is fast, powerful and should meet every need you will have for running Blue Iris and future camera expansion.

 

On the downside, did you ever notice how the fastenest, somkinest, sweetest machine you ever owned always feels slower after a year?

Edited May 16, 2013 by Guest

[dexterash 0]

I posted the question in a very good intent.

 

When I first read BI switched to direct to disk I figured it will just write uncompressed/non-recompressed streams, thus the change in CPU usage.

 

So that means people will be able to record more (8, for example) cameras.

 

But, also, will be a caveat when you want to search through recordings. If you cannot view all 8 cameras at a time at playback (maybe with fastforward too), what happens when you will have to review 7 days of 8 camera recordings? After all, cameras are installed for the recordings(usually) review, not for recordings that no one will ever review or for viewing live.

 

The power of the CPU gained via direct-to-disk can (and will be) lost at playback, if they will implement more than one camera playback (which i think it's a very good thing to do).

 

Ok, you will state motion detection will do some work (I said some, since motion can give false positives; also, I'm not sure if motion it's done at camera level or at CPU level).

[zikronix 0]

I just purchased this machine for $684.00. The processor is an i7-3770 Quad-core, 3.4GHz. This is a very powerful CPU. I am currently running Blue Iris with 8 IP cameras (14 total Megapixels). 6 cameras are running at 5FPS/4096 Bitrate and 2 cameras are running 10FPS/6144 Bitrate. My "idle" processor usage is between 10% to 14%. My CPU usage rise when motion is detected and recording starts, but I do not have any data on this yet.

 

That's good to know. That makes me think the machine I spec'd above might actually do 8 cams/6144 @ no less than 20 FPS...Does bi do motion detection? or are you relying on the Costco cams for that?

[zikronix 0]

I posted the question in a very good intent.

 

When I first read BI switched to direct to disk I figured it will just write uncompressed/non-recompressed streams, thus the change in CPU usage.

 

So that means people will be able to record more (8, for example) cameras.

 

But, also, will be a caveat when you want to search through recordings. If you cannot view all 8 cameras at a time at playback (maybe with fastforward too), what happens when you will have to review 7 days of 8 camera recordings? After all, cameras are installed for the recordings(usually) review, not for recordings that no one will ever review or for viewing live.

 

The power of the CPU gained via direct-to-disk can (and will be) lost at playback, if they will implement more than one camera playback (which i think it's a very good thing to do).

 

Ok, you will state motion detection will do some work (I said some, since motion can give false positives; also, I'm not sure if motion it's done at camera level or at CPU level).

 

 

I really think me and you are on the same page here with the same questions....and there really is no clear answer, other than the people that run it.

[dexterash 0]

Last time I checked out BI was using the RTSP stream, which has no Motion Detection or anything like this.

 

With all the "fuss" about Onvif, all manufacturers (with support from the SoC's/CPU manufacturers) started introducing RTSP servers in their devices. It's a good, nice thing, but this is not enough.

 

For example, DAHUA's Onvif compat products use a JSON-HTML API for settings and motion detection (even if it's not mature, there is something done that can be used by NVR-like software manufacturers).

 

Other low-priced (like really low priced) manufacturers have implemented an old, buggy RTSP with no API for MD.

 

Of course, things might have changed, but for a true NVR software to work well on a PC will need dedicated libraries/protocols to decode, a powerfull GPU(acceleration included) to display MP,a good MD engine (or rely on IPCameras) and a very well implemented database with events, recordings, timings etc.

 

It's not in the power of the CPU to decode all, mostly should be done via accelerated decoding.

[buellwinkle 0]

With BI, motion detection is done by the software and not the camera but it's actually quite good and provides less false positives and more accurate positives than what most cameras can do.

 

Doesn't matter if you use direct recording or not, you can only view one recording from one camera at a time.

 

There is no compression being done by BI on direct record, it's whatever you setup your stream to be on the camera. Obviously it has to decompress the stream to display it and to do motion detection.

 

BI does have some cool features that other software does not have. For example, it has the ability to stream video so you can embed streaming video from any of your cameras to a web page. It can archive recordings to an FTP server, so you can have redundant storage in the cloud for off-site backup. It has a stoplight icon that lets you turn off recordings while you are home with one click and then turn them on with one click with a delay, like an alarm where you can set it and give yourself say 5 minutes to leave. The web interface works with any browser, smart phones, tablets, anything and it's light weight and fast. Works with just about any camera. When you consider this is $50 for a server, it's pretty awesome.

[dexterash 0]

With all due respect to your work:

-why would anyone want to embed personal video surveillance into an website?

-syncronizing a directory of recordings can be done by many GPL software

-why would anyone stop a private surveillance video system? I wouldn't

-delay it's ok, but video doesn't work as alarm systems; alarm systems are pointed at "major" events that cause problems, whileist video is a general system, usually used to identify a possible event or the person implied in the event

-works with any web browser, but you have to admit it's very limited;does it work with recordings-to-disk too?

a dedicated software works better

-lightweight&fast, but sluggish; 1fps? 2-3 fps?

 

I wouldn't call it a server... just an entry-level solution.

[zikronix 0]

With BI, motion detection is done by the software and not the camera but it's actually quite good and provides less false positives and more accurate positives than what most cameras can do.

 

Doesn't matter if you use direct recording or not, you can only view one recording from one camera at a time.

 

There is no compression being done by BI on direct record, it's whatever you setup your stream to be on the camera. Obviously it has to decompress the stream to display it and to do motion detection.

 

BI does have some cool features that other software does not have. For example, it has the ability to stream video so you can embed streaming video from any of your cameras to a web page. It can archive recordings to an FTP server, so you can have redundant storage in the cloud for off-site backup. It has a stoplight icon that lets you turn off recordings while you are home with one click and then turn them on with one click with a delay, like an alarm where you can set it and give yourself say 5 minutes to leave. The web interface works with any browser, smart phones, tablets, anything and it's light weight and fast. Works with just about any camera. When you consider this is $50 for a server, it's pretty awesome.

 

 

Can it do MD when direct to disk is enabled?

[Q2U 0]

...I wouldn't call it a server... just an entry-level solution.

 

It certainly sounds like you have a complete understanding of the Blue Iris software. How long did you run and evaluate the Blue Iris software to arrive at your conclusions?

[dexterash 0]

At least of couple of times, since we were looking for cross-protocol solution, restreaming server(to RTMP/Flash and HTML5 to be supported by iOS) etc.

 

Ok, in a simple strictly software way, it's a server and a client too. But not one that I would depend on.

[zikronix 0]

At least of couple of times, since we were looking for cross-protocol solution, restreaming server(to RTMP/Flash and HTML5 to be supported by iOS) etc.

 

Ok, in a simple strictly software way, it's a server and a client too. But not one that I would depend on.

 

I would have no issues running it but you can bet your self im not going to put it on just a computer. Im going to put it on a server class box, built to be stable. Ironically I would also have no issue putting it on a highend workstation class laptop, but its cheaper to build a server.

 

The only other issue that bothers me with BI is if it was coded for 64bit they could lower their over head used by roughly a quarter to half, increase stability, have better memory management and potentially leap ahead of the competition simply due to the fact there is no one out there really putting out 64 bit camera apps. this is something that needs to be addressed by all manufacturers....STOP CODING LEGACY CRAP! GET WITH THE TIMES PEOPLE