18 IP cam design

[Razer_SE 0]

The processor you need for live view totally depends on the software you are using. I tested Luxriot and liked it a while back, but I do not remember the processor usage. I had a few cameras I wanted to use that were not supported and the web view had a few issues that made it not work for us, but it was good software as I remember it anyway.

 

What I do know is that I just logged into a server of mine that I'm setting up right now. I use Exacq, and this location currently has 12 1mp cameras and 1 2mp camera along with 8 analog cameras. The IP cameras are all running on motion only, all at full resolution and depending on the camera between 5 and 15 fps. With 20 cameras on the screen at once my computer process is sitting at 17% usage. The memory is at 37% usage. The processor is an i3, @ 3.3ghz and there is 4gb of RAM.

 

I'll be adding at least two more IP cameras here, I have others with that many cameras but this was the most recent to get you an idea of camera usage processor usage on exacq, not sure where luxriot comes in at in comparison.

 

POE switches are very nice, but I used Cicso and had several issues with the switches going bad, used basic Zyxel unmanaged and have had no issues and they've been perfectly reliable. Cisco covered the switches no problem, but it was still a pain to keep switching them out. I have 900ish cameras and 75 current locations and servers so I need reliability. If I need to power cycle I'll power cycle the UPS the switch is connected to and I get the same end result as using a managed switch in my case anyway.

 

Managed switch at the office is a must, for my cameras it is unneeded for me anyway as I can remote to the UPS.

[robert 0]

Razer,

 

Just recording cameras doesn`t take a lot of CPU, but try live view of few H264 cameras - this is where CPU power kicks in for decoding. For my project I need minimum 3.4 Ghz i7 Ivy Bridge +4GB RAM.

[Razer_SE 0]

That was with live view, of all 20 cameras at once. All h.264 encoded.

 

That's what I'm saying, not all software uses the processor the same as I've used other software that displaying 4 cameras at once would eat that same i3 processor alive lol.

 

In fact after watching for a while the processor settled down to only 13% processor usage again with all 20 cameras displayed on screen at once, and with 4 of them recording at the time. I was also in the machine remotely, so there was some overhead from my connection also.

 

I just tested another machine. Live view of 16 cameras. 11 of these are 3mp cameras, 1 is a 2mp camera and 4 are analog. All are h.264 encoded. The processor is an i3 at 3.1ghz, and there is 2gb of ram. The processor usage is 33% and steady there with me remoted in again with all 16 on screen at once. It goes to 37% when I remotely access the web view of all the cameras. Ram is at 2gb, and it sits at 80% used. Usually the system rotates 4 cameras at a time in a view rotation, this results in a normal CPU usage of 9% with spikes up to 15% when the rotation to the next quad view shows up.

 

My exacq software may be more than some other options, but I also get it to run on very inexpensive servers making a lot of that cost right back up which is nice. Plus the systems are very reliable as they are not taxed very hard and they run cool and easy resulting in superb reliability.

 

When I researched what new platform we were moving to I tried out maybe 7 products extensively, and looked at many more that I was able to tell early on would not work for my needs. In the end Exacq won our for my specific needs, and Luxriot and Avigilon rounded out my top three. Avigilon was third mainly due to cost, Luxriot was cheaper my had a couple critical flaws for my needs which are admittedly unusual. Exacq was able to meet all my needs, and in the end I was able to get great pricing so we went that route. I talked with Luxriot guys quite a bit and they had a good product with potential to be even better in the near future. I've not looked at them in the last year to see how far they have progressed.

[robert 0]

Razer, sounds too good to be true That`s impressive I must say.

[Razer_SE 0]

I know, hence why I mentioned it. Take a look at this one, specifically the processor in this beast lol.

 

Mind you this is displaying 2 4mp cameras (Acti) and 6 1mp cameras (Vivotek) in live view all at once. All h.264 of course, on a Celeron. An old Celeron!

[MaxIcon 0]

That is impressive. What's the frame rate on those cams?

[skomo 0]

avigilon vms does gpu h264 decompression offloading so it will take the pressure of the cpu...

i think its limited to like 4 cameras depending on nvidia gpu...

[Razer_SE 0]

That is impressive. What's the frame rate on those cams?

 

Sorry for the delay, I had to wait until morning to double check for you. The two 4mp ACTi 3911 cameras are running at 12fps which is max at that resolution. The Vivotek 8332 1mp cameras are all running at 8fps.

 

When I got my very first Exacq test system I scoffed at it only having an i3 myself, but after a lot of testing I finally understood. It really is surprising, but now that I'm used to it I'm surprised when I see how much others use lol.

 

Here is another example to show it's not a fluke, the screenshot below is 19 cameras being displayed in live view. 17 of these cameras are IP, two are analog. The analog cameras are mpeg4 at 5fps. The IP camera details are all h.264 with 14 1mp cameras at 5fps except for one that is at 10fps. 1 2mp camera at 8fps and 2 5mp cameras at 8fps.

 

The CPU is an i3 @ 3.1ghz and it has 2gb of ram. The cpu bounces around from 31% to 33% as far as usage, and this just has standard onboard Intel video also. Not bad at all.

[AdamDaze 0]

Huh, I didn't know i3's did hyperthreading. That certainly helps.

[PokerMunkee 0]

Huh, I didn't know i3's did hyperthreading. That certainly helps.

 

i3 = Dual Core w/ HT

i5 = Quad Core

i7 = Quad Core w/ HT

 

 

Servers streaming 20x 3MP cameras at 15FPS use 1-5% CPU. The client streaming them all will max out a i3. Definitely have i5+ on client computers.

[Razer_SE 0]

This is in the client. The server running only of course uses literally almost nothing at all. The client for Exacq as seen here in the shots is the exact same client you use remotely. Same installer, same program.

 

In fact, in the main office I have the client streaming a constant rotation of shots from all locations, so anywhere from 6 to 24 IP cameras at once streaming all the time in the client. This is on a Pentium D at 3ghz and it sits right at 33% usage. With 24 cameras it gets closer to 45% usage, but still totally acceptable for a dual core old machine! This is all the machine does, for 16+ hours each day.

[MaxIcon 0]

That's very good decode performance; they must have some nicely tweaked software.

 

Is the Exacq licensing model still the same, with annual per-cam update costs that accrue even when you skip a few years?

 

I remember a discussion where Exacq costs could run to pretty large numbers over a few years. I'm not sure how that compares to other per-cam license cost packages; I try to avoid those!

 

ETA: Here's the thread, complete with high-cost horror story!

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=30738

Edited January 24, 2014 by Guest

[robert 0]

Damn, that`s how they pump out money from customers. I would never sign up my customers to such payment scheme.

[Razer_SE 0]

I know there are plenty of options, but when we looked and selected Exacq they were the second cheapest option by a lard margin, the cheapest was Luxriot but they still missed out on a few features we wanted. In the end the features were needs and not wants so we went with Exacq. Avigilon was the next choice that met all needs and wants, but they were much more costly.

 

For virtually all home users an Exacq start system would be fine. Really anyone with only one NVR/DVR would work fine on start outside a few cases. A 10 camera system with all updates for 5 years would be $1000. $50 per camera and $10 per camera for each extra year. The NVR to run this on, and run well, would be what, $500-$600? I don't think $1500-$1600 is all that bad a all. With a great web view. Ability to even do playback and such in web view. Android and iOS apps free. Note that this is MSRP, and you can do better than that price on the licenses.

 

Start would work fine for us in fact, the only real ability I need is the ability to connect to more than one server at a time. You can have as many as you want in the client, but only one actually connected at a given time in the checkboxes. I want a rotation of all 75 servers so that will not work for me, but then again most would not need that. Other than that one thing we'd be on the start version and be just fine. Then there is standard, and enterprise. I'm on standard and it meets our needs in every way right now.

 

Also, it will run just fine once expired, you just can't get new versions. They certify new cameras in the new versions but usually new cameras from a supported brand work fine. New ACTi cameras have an fine for me even when not "supported" so a new version may well not be needed. We might not upgrade after our years run out as we may not need to. Also, after 6-7 years and I want to upgrade there may well be better software out there, a new company, who knows?

 

I know tyco has purchased exacq so now I'm worried about what the company and pricing will look like in 5 years. We may well move on, who knows?

[MaxIcon 0]

That's not so bad. They must have lowered their prices; this was what someone posted in 2012:

 

Went to upgrade a 3 y\0 exac hybrid dvr that had never had any upgrades done. Over $2500 in upgrade fees.

 

600-for each year up to the current year

300- for the current year

Then $25 per ip camera per year. (14 ip cameras on the system)