Mobotix and NAS

[bpzle 0]

Anyone tried using the consumer grade NAS devices with Mobotix? Any luck? I'm looking at 1TB units on Amazon for around $150 or less. Any reason why that's a bad idea?

[thewireguys 3]

I have used QNAP and Mobotix recommends Overland Storage. http://www.overlandstorage.com/

 

I would skip the cheap units.

 

Are you going to use MXCC, Easy or the web interface?

[bpzle 0]

Ironically, I would want to go with Mobotix to save money vs my tranditional nvr or dvr approach. I have 2 seperate jobs where only 1 camera is needed.

I realize a $500 or more NAS would be ideal but what would the major drawbacks be if I went with a WD My Book World NAS?

[thewireguys 3]

Why not just use the onboard storage for one camera?

[bpzle 0]

I'd like to get the customer at least 2 weeks of storeage for a medium traffic area.

[Voipmodo 0]

we have good luck with the seagate black armor drives. I have installed them on small projects and have customers who have used them in school district installs. With the messed up sales channels we have found its actually cheaper to buy from amazon or newegg for NAS drives then through distribution in most cases.

[bpzle 0]

thanks!

[Sawbones 0]

Another recommendation for Seagate. They've been my go-to hard drive for a number of years, and rarely do they disappoint me.

[ipcamerastoreusa 0]

Another recommendation for QNAP. Their price-quality ratio is very good!

[Simon Hall 0]

This tutorial might be useful to installers looking for a NAS guideline:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zON2YYHJ95s

[ssmith10pn 0]

Avigilon gave us a file that tests write speeds on a drive. Pretty Eye Opening stuff.

 

The Avigilon Servers with the Onboard RAID 5 SAN Drives were in the 280MBPS range and the NS-480 SAN was 480MBPS. No that's not a typo. Mega Bytes not Mega bits.

 

I'll bet those cheap NAS drives won't write 100Mbps.

[ak357 0]

Avigilon gave us a file that tests write speeds on a drive. Pretty Eye Opening stuff.

 

The Avigilon Servers with the Onboard RAID 5 SAN Drives were in the 280MBPS range and the NS-480 SAN was 480MBPS. No that's not a typo. Mega Bytes not Mega bits.

 

 

What number do u use to calculate Max bandwidth per server ?

[ssmith10pn 0]

Avigilon gave us a file that tests write speeds on a drive. Pretty Eye Opening stuff.

 

The Avigilon Servers with the Onboard RAID 5 SAN Drives were in the 280MBPS range and the NS-480 SAN was 480MBPS. No that's not a typo. Mega Bytes not Mega bits.

 

 

What number do u use to calculate Max bandwidth per server ?

 

 

250Mbps

 

 

We have not hit that yet. Next week will will have enough cameras online to hit that number.

I have one server with 15 (5Mp) cameras running at about 175Mbps

I have another server with 14 (1Mp), 4 (2Mp), and 11 (4channel Encoders) running at 75Mbps

I have 10 More (5Mp) cameras coming on line next week.

 

Ironically, the server with the 15 (5Mp) cameras gets about 14 days on 5TB of storage and the second server takes 15TB to get the same amount of time.

Server 1 is in a parking deck so there is very little motion. Server 2 is in a Hospital that is very active 24/7

[ak357 0]

250Mbps

We have not hit that yet. Next week will will have enough cameras online to hit that number.

I have one server with 15 (5Mp) cameras running at about 175Mbps

I have another server with 14 (1Mp), 4 (2Mp), and 11 (4channel Encoders) running at 75Mbps

I have 10 More (5Mp) cameras coming on line next week.

 

Ironically, the server with the 15 (5Mp) cameras gets about 14 days on 5TB of storage and the second server takes 15TB to get the same amount of time.

Server 1 is in a parking deck so there is very little motion. Server 2 is in a Hospital that is very active 24/7

 

Agree, my max limit is 256 mbps

did not hit limits yet

have 3 servers on customer location

23cam

12 cams

16 cams

All 2 mp h.264

23 cams doing about 160-180 mbps

[ssmith10pn 0]

Server 1

Server 2

Server 3

[ak357 0]

server1

 

 

Server with 23 cams

 

[ssmith10pn 0]

What did I miss?

[Soundy 1]

What did I miss?

Nothing to see here, go on about your business...

[ssmith10pn 0]

LOL! " title="Applause" />

[frank3 0]

3% CPU for 23 cams?? How much bandwidth is that server dealing with? Are you sure the cameras are connected?

[Soundy 1]

Receiving network data and writing it to disk isn't particularly processor-intensive...

[hardwired 0]

It usually depends if your NVR software does any transcoding or post-processing of the data stream from the camera, or if that is handled by the viewing client. For example, Milestone/ONSSI does a lot of processing on the streams, and is fairly processor intensive, Avigilon and Exacq don't seem to do anywhere near as much processing, and so have a much lower processor load.

 

This can be deceptive in system planning, though, as you can easily overload a NVR with streams that exceed the disk system write capability, which is not as apparent in a quick view in the task manager (Win7 has much better options for viewing that load compared to XP, although you may want to use a third party testing S/W to test your write limits).

[ssmith10pn 0]

3% CPU for 23 cams?? How much bandwidth is that server dealing with? Are you sure the cameras are connected?

 

My screen shots show DU meter as well.

Pay close attention to Server 2. That's 15 Avigilon 5mp cameras.

 

server1

 

server2

 

server3

[thewireguys 3]

3% CPU for 23 cams?? How much bandwidth is that server dealing with? Are you sure the cameras are connected?

 

My screen shots show DU meter as well.

Pay close attention to Server 2. That's 15 Avigilon 5mp cameras.

 

server1

 

server2

 

server3

 

What FPS and quality setting?

[Soundy 1]

It usually depends if your NVR software does any transcoding or post-processing of the data stream from the camera, or if that is handled by the viewing client. For example, Milestone/ONSSI does a lot of processing on the streams, and is fairly processor intensive, Avigilon and Exacq don't seem to do anywhere near as much processing, and so have a much lower processor load.

Good point, although that really just reinforces what I said: simply receiving the stream and writing it to disk is not processor-intensive... it's all that other stuff that is, particularly the decoding that's required for everything else to happen (analytics, motion detection, transcoding, etc.)