Jump to content
voip-ninja

Testing Milestone - internet access issues

Recommended Posts

So, there seem to be some Avigilon experts here.

 

I've got the camera server installed, and it automatically detected my cameras including the model #. For both camera models (P3364 and SNV5080R) it shows ONVIF as the connection type.

 

I had to manually add the cams though to get them to connect. The good news is that they work.

 

Does anyone know how to change the default port # for the web gateway? It looks like it coded itself to port 80 which is already in use on my server. I will need to set it to something arbitrary to get it to work with my test setup.

 

I've been poking around in the http directory for the service but don't find where I can set this and it doesn't look like there's a GUI setting to adjust it.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there seem to be some Avigilon experts here.

Does anyone know how to change the default port # for the web gateway? It looks like it coded itself to port 80 which is already in use on my server. I will need to set it to something arbitrary to get it to work with my test setup.

 

I've been poking around in the http directory for the service but don't find where I can set this and it doesn't look like there's a GUI setting to adjust it.

 

Thanks.

here we go

1387117378_ToChangeWebPortforGatewayServer.jpg.4f72ab614671458c8562a6798f2533e4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do what ak357 mentions, or if you can temporarily stop whatever other service is using port 80, then restart the gateway service, you should be able to log into it's web page and edit the port that it uses there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't seem to find the process (I know it's part of Windows Home Server garbage) to kill it off. I will do as Alex shows and change the port# there.

 

Is there a script to re-start the web gateway? It's not showing up in the process list either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What comes up is the Windows Home Server landing page. I'm not sure if there is a way to disable it or if it is wise to do so. Easier to use another port. I am at lunch with my wife but will work on this in a bit when I get home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, there seem to be some Avigilon experts here.

Does anyone know how to change the default port # for the web gateway? It looks like it coded itself to port 80 which is already in use on my server. I will need to set it to something arbitrary to get it to work with my test setup.

 

I've been poking around in the http directory for the service but don't find where I can set this and it doesn't look like there's a GUI setting to adjust it.

 

Thanks.

here we go

 

There must be something else to it, because it's not working.

 

When I make these changes, kill the IIS service and then click the program->avigilon->gateway config choice I get a localhost page trying to load that says "not found". If I manually change the port # in the web browser to 61000 (the port I configured for http) I get a broken page load that says "Avigilon Control Center Gateway".

 

This is what I have in my config file;

 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<Root>

 <LastEditingVersion>
   <ConfigItem name="Major" type="Integer" value="0"/>
   <ConfigItem name="Minor" type="Integer" value="0"/>
   <ConfigItem name="Cycle" type="Integer" value="0"/>
   <ConfigItem name="Release" type="Integer" value="0"/>
   <ConfigItem name="Build" type="Integer" value="0"/>
 </LastEditingVersion>

 <Gateway>
   <ConfigItem name="OverridePorts" type="Boolean" value="1"/>		" was zero"
   <ConfigItem name="HttpPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61000"/>  " was 80 "80
   <ConfigItem name="HttpsPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61001"/>   " was 443 "443
   <ConfigItem name="HttpCfgPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61000"/>	was " 80 "
   <ConfigItem name="HttpsCfgPortOverride" type="Integer" value="61001"/>	was " 443 "
 </Gateway>

</Root>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[attachment=0]screen-capture.png[/attachment]

Connecting Servers

After you log in, you are immediately taken to the Connect Servers page. You must connect

servers to the Gateway before they can be accessed by ACC Mobile.

1. To connect a server to the Gateway, select a server from the Discovered Servers list

then click Connect. The server is added to the Connected Servers list.

 

u wanna do teamviewer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not getting a login page or anything else. Just the page you are seeing in the screen capture. I only get that if I force my port # in when connecting. If I click the gateway setup link I get "page not found".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not getting a login page or anything else. Just the page you are seeing in the screen capture. I only get that if I force my port # in when connecting. If I click the gateway setup link I get "page not found".

 

check PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got it figured out. PITA though.

 

The problem is, whenever I would click on the "gateway" setup link it was giving me a "page not found" but only after it redirected to some goofy default search link for the local page index file.

 

I was able to simply point to http://localhost:my-port-# and finally got it to pop the login page.

 

Further complicating things was that some of the time I was trying to access it from another machine on the network and you can't do this unless you turn remote admin on.

 

So, recap;

 

1. modified http ports as previously discussed.

2. go to http://localhost:my-port# and login

3. add the gateway

 

I also stopped IIS a bunch of times so not sure if that was involved with jiggling it loose. I notice that every time I start Avigilon Web Gateway though that IIS automatically starts back up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought maybe they weren't serious, but apparently they are. Fails with Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Sorry guys, but I don't speak Internet Explorer. That's the browser I use to install a better browser.

 

screen-capture-2.png.2e48a6ba8c966cf8a7ddefc725769646.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a tradeoff, I don't like IE much either, but in this case, the ActiveX plugin that runs allows it to almost perfectly replicate the thick client experience. It's better than anything else I've seen in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a tradeoff, I don't like IE much either, but in this case, the ActiveX plugin that runs allows it to almost perfectly replicate the thick client experience. It's better than anything else I've seen in that regard.

 

Understandable, but very unfriendly for everyone running anything other than windows. I would actually say that a ligher weight web client that works with all browsers (like Milestone) is more of an advantage in this area... use that light weight browser for quick access and fire up a virtual machine running Windows if you need the full client.

 

The mobile client for Avigilon is pretty simple but the IQ is good and the ability to manage layouts is a big plus. Playback smoothness is not as good as Milestone and it does not have some of the Milestone niceties such as showing visual indicators in the mobile view for activities such as "recording" and "alarm event". Also, I am not sure if Avigilon has the capability of staying up and connected with the mobile indefinitely, Milestone specifically has a setting of "do not sleep when viewing streaming video" and it will stay up and reconnect as needed pretty much indefinitely from what I've seen.

 

Really though, lack of web browser support for anything other than IE is a deal breaker for me with Avigilon. Thanks all for the help in getting it going and playing around with it.

 

If I ran all Windows machines I might more strongly consider it. As it is looks like I'll probably be plunking down for some Milestone licenses soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the web client is very nice and basically just like the client software without access to admin the system.

 

Why not just use the client software if you don't like IE?

 

I think Milestone has the upper hand with the mobile app but Avigilon is much easier to configure and way more intuitive to use.

 

I have customers that use MACs and they went with Parallels to run Avigilon because of how fast and easy the client is to use. That being said I wish there was a native MAC program.

 

Also since the access control company they purchased is Linux based I am curious if they will release Linux version of VMS software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the web client is very nice and basically just like the client software without access to admin the system.

 

Why not just use the client software if you don't like IE?

 

 

Because I have Macs... and I don't always want to have to be running a Windows VM just to access security feeds. If my doorbell rings I like to just pull up a quick web browser to see who is at the door, or walk over to a tablet, etc, that is monitoring the feeds all of the time.

 

One plus for ExacQ is that they offer a full featured thick client for OS X... which is sweet, but their mobile apps are terrible.

 

I would say that for my own uses, the mobile apps are probably the #1 or #2 thing as far as overall experience goes. This is because I usually leave 1 or more mobile devices up and connected, and when I'm working at my corporate offices I often check on package deliveries, dog sitter showing up, etc, with my iPhone or a web browser, not with a thick client.

 

I really appreciate everyone's help though in playing with all of these different packages, and Alex's offer of doing teamviewer to get Avigilon going was especially helpful to me (even though I figured it out on my own).

 

The good news here, for us consumers, is that these packages are getting better and better every year. I evaluated a lot of this stuff in the Oct/Dec time-frame and it has already improved ... a LOT in some cases (Milestone is like 10X better than it was last time I looked at it).

 

For those of you guys who move a lot of Avigilon installations, please give them some feedback courtesy of me, your typicaly joe schmoe consumer;

 

1. They should offer the ability to configure the port #s for the web gateway at install time.

2. They should work to further enhance their mobile apps.

3. They should offer a native OS X client... or, barring that, they should offer a "light weight" web client that works with different browsers, even if it does nothing other than offer basic live view and minimal playback controls... as an aside, one of my biggest beefs with Synology is that they have a huge thick-client type web client that relies on Java, is slow as hell, and is constantly broken every time Java gets updated.

 

I would say out of everything I've looked at this past week this is how I personally rank these packages for my own uses (obviously everyone has different needs);

 

1. Milestone XProtect.

2. Avigilon

3. ExacQ

4. Synology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can actuality send the feed back directly from the client software. In ACC5 in the top right hand corner of the client software click the "cog" then "send feedback".

 

Avigilon's product management sees this and they value it. As you are a end user it would be best coming from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I did that. I think they have a good solution and can see why many professionals like it. Just won't quite meet my needs at this point, but I did give them feedback on what I thought the strengths and weaknesses were compared to their competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just completed my review on the Synology Surveillance Station. It has similar if not more comprehensive search capabilities than what I've seen from Avigilon ACC for example missing object, foreign object, focus lost, tally counter, virtual fence and others. Not saying I love Synology, works well but has quirks. The deal breaker for me was that it didn't resolutions beyond 1080P. Their smartphone apps work, but too simplistic in design. It holds so much promise to have a good high quality NAS combined with an NVR solution.

 

I'm going to load up Milestone Essential next as the price seems right and looks decent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think you should test this VMS. If you download and activate it in by the end of the week you will have 4 free licenses. Once 1.6 is released the freebe is going away.

 

http://networkoptix.com/products/hdwitness/

 

As for the the Avigilon comparison with Synology there is no doubt they may have more searching options I would highly doubt it could match the speed and usability. Either way I am looking forward for the review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for those with basic needs Synology does reasonably well. If you don't mind using the bloated and java dependent browser interface to access the recordings (locally mind you, WAN access leaves a lot to be desired) then it will absolutely do the job.

 

It is a bit of a chore to review for specific events because Synology's ability to scrub multiple cams at high speed is not very good.

 

And, as mentioned, Synology only works "well" with MJPEG, which is a space hog. Even then, the mobile apps are sort of hit and miss. If you are only using MJPEG then it is possible to display multiple cameras simultaneously in both the Android and iOS app, but only the iOS app is able to display multiple cams at once if they are not all MJPEG.

 

The mobile apps also "quit" or disconnect unexpectedly and they don't automatically reconnect. Using a Galaxy tab as a "doorbell camera display" was somewhat frustrating as it would just randomly be disconnected (and of course it's always the time that someone is ringing your bell at 10PM that it has quit).

 

Milestone has issues too, and the support looks like it leaves a lot to be desired, but definitely better than surveillance station, assuming you have a box to run it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×