November 25, 2013
Attached is a design I wanted to run by you. There is a central building represented by the red box. There are 6 buildings, each with an 8-port Gigabit POE switch in it. I know the buildings look like they are multiple buildings, but they are not. I want to use the Ubiquity M5's to connect the buildings, so each arrow represents a PAIR of M5 wireless bridges.
I want to see if this design is feasible. When I get to the NVR-LT-128, can I just run one cat5e cable from the POE switch in this building to the NVR-LT-128, and that will be sufficient to handle the bandwidth of the 28 IP cameras, or do I run multiple cat5e cables from the gigabit switch to the NVR-LT-128. Also, I know I won't be able to connect the NVR directly to a POE switch, so I'll have to probably strip the POE on whatever runs I have going to the NVR. I could use a little help on this one though.
Thanks for your help!!
March 9, 2013
This is a complex installation. I am not sure that I would choose to go with a 128 camera NVR. This means that all the mainstream video will be travelling through the entire network. That's a lot of traffic over large distances. Just for the recorded video you will be consuming over 200mbps. Then you have all the remote access and any other internet traffic on the network.
It would be much more practical for you to use an edge server configuration. You can built the backbone network any way you want. Your solution of wireless bridges will work fine. Then install a our 16 channel Elite NVR or our 32 Channel Elite-Mini NVR in each location you have designated with an 8 port POE switch. Now you will have 7 recording servers. Each running independently. They will be connected on a single network for remote access (which will use the substream with much lower bandwidth requirements) but the recording video traffic will no longer need to travel over the entire network. Now, even if part of the network goes down, every camera will continue to record at the local NVR. Also, you won't have to worry about the ethernet distance and switch limitations that it appears may become an issue for you. I can't be sure from the image since there is no scale, but remember that the limitation for ethernet over CAT5e is 320 feet between switches with a maximum of 3 switches in a single line. The fact that you have included wireless may offer some extension of those limitations, but you will also run into latency and collision issues.
November 25, 2013
Thank you for the reply Brad!
Our client wants a centralized NVR for real-time viewing and management, so we're trying to build the ideal solution for that. Each building segment is right at 100ft. There are three segments that make up each of the middle buildings (300ft), with another segment to make the "L" shape of the building. There is 1 camera in each of the building segments. We figure the POE switch as centrally located as possible, so the very most a single camera would have to run to a switch is 150ft.
I am unfamiliar with the edge server configuration. Also, where do you get 200mbps? We are using 1080p cameras. I believe they need around 4mbps, so that's 112mbps for the entire network. We're using gigabit switches and cat6. I believe the Nano Loco M5's use a 10/100 port though.
Do you see any way to make our solution work well?
March 9, 2013
Unfortunately, over the air you will still be limited to 54mbps and you will have bottle neck issues this way. The experience to the user is no different with edge servers than it will be with a single central server. The user will be using our client software TechproPSS-PC to connect to the server. It can connect to multiple servers seamlessly. It would appear as if you were connected to a single server. There really is no difference to the user. Additionally, you gain so many benefits by recording locally near each group of cameras rather than centrally in a single location. If the network should go down somewhere, the local NVRs are all still able to record. If you go with a single server configuration, an one of the NS LOCO go down (which does happen) you now cannot access the cameras remotely AND you are no longer recording the video.
Lastly are the issues with distance and switch limitations. More than 3 switches between camera and NVR is cause for concern and since you are also including multiple wireless bridges, you stand much more opportunity for latency issues.
Additionally, when you are looking at bandwidth usage, remember to take into account any remote access which can quickly increase bandwidth use. Of course, this is all just my opinion, you are free to do the installation any way you see fit.
As for how I came to 200mbps, I counted 7 different 8 port POE switches so it could be conceivable to have 56 cameras at 4mbps each.
November 25, 2013
Thank you again!
I do appreciate your feedback!
Why do you say that over the air, you can only get 54mbps? The Nano Loco M5 specs 300mbps (of course, t hat is in theory and not real world). The Ubiquiti AirFiber solution specs 1-1.4Gbps depending on which you purchase.
So, say we have a 16-Channel NVR at each switch, how would the client retrieve recorded footage from them? Would it be remotely, or would it be by physically going to each NVR? Also, would the client be able to see all of the cameras in real-time @ 1080p and 10-15fps from his office via the software you mentioned? He'd view on his PC, not a 50in dedicated camera display, for instance?
What are the components we would need if we were going to record locally and manage centrally? 7 NVR's with 8TB or so hard drive, 7 gigabit POE switches, and TechproSS - PC? And of course we'd have the wireless bridging and cabling.
It is extremely important that we not show our customers to SecurityCameraKing.com or any other affiliate site. We don't want them to even be able to Google search and find anything from a model number or software title.
March 9, 2013
I get the information on the NS Loco here http://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/.....ds_web.pdf From what I see there is a single 10/100 port and 54mbps bandwidth over the air. Maybe I am reading the sheet wrong. If so, I am sorry.
There really is no reason for someone to go to the NVR after initial configuration is done. Everything should be done remotely. Once you create the connection in our software, all NVRs will be connected at once. You can change settings, download video, search video, view live video, set up tasks and projects like have certain cameras on screen in a specific rotation or sequence at any given time. You really have so much more control this way. The software can be installed on any monitoring station you choose. Also, you can set up one station to do daily or nightly backups of recorded footage. There is a backup scheduler included. You can have cameras pop up based on triggers like motion events. Whether you have all cameras going to a single NVR or to multiple NVRs really makes no difference when using the software. This is an older video of our software, we have many new features, but the premise is still the same and the overall look and functionality is the same.
I personally use the software every day. I have two 42 inch monitors in my office. They turn on at 9am every morning and turn off at 6pm every night. I have a total of 18 cameras that have been preselected from several different DVRs and NVRs on display. It is a seamless connection. The quality of the video that your client can see and the resolution and frame rate has more to do with the network and the video card in the PC than anything else. I would never recommend monitoring the main stream of the NVR. I would use the sub stream set up to a lower resolution and frame rate for live monitoring and use the main stream for the recording quality. This will conserve bandwidth and resources in the network, from the NVRs and on the client PC. If they wish, they can easily switch to the main stream as needed or refer to the recorded footage which will be at the higher resolution and frame rate. Again, this is just my opinion, but is based on thousand of installations that we have been involved in.
If you were to go with this set up, you would simply replace the single NVR with the 7 16 Channel EL NVRS. I would go with the 2U units to get the extra thoughput and storage. I would co-locate each one at the same place you were putting in the POE switches. The Monitoring Station would be a PC. I recommend an I5 or better, 8G RAM or better, and a 1GB video card. You can connect two monitors with the one video card. You can add more monitors by adding more video cards. You can also set up multiple monitoring stations if you want.
We offer a Private Label service. Please make the inquiry with our sales people. We can provide you with complete OEM services. This is a unique service we offer. Everything can be branded with your company including manuals and labels. Software can be generic. This allows you to maintain your margins without worrying about competitive research for the same products. We have many dealers that take advantage of this service.
We also are able to offer you a private website where you can feature all your private labeled products, create estimates for your customers and even sell online. Again, we have many dealers on this program.
November 25, 2013
Forgive me for all of the questions.
With the multiple NVR configuration, you...
1. Plug each 16 Channel NVR into the respective POE switch (I assume you'd need to turn the POE off on that port)
2. Then set that NVR to connect to the cameras connected to that POE switch?
3. Then you still connect all of the switches to the main building POE switch, bridging between each building with a pair of Nano Loco M5's.4. Then connect the main switch to a router (for remote viewing) and a PC with the software
Is this the gist? anything I'm missing?
I just watched the support video on your site for the Nano Loco, and Jesus says something about it supporting 150mbps. I'm sure it depends what frequency you use as well. I know the wifi N (5GHz) can support more than 54mbps, but I've never tried to max it out. I wish you could just stack the units by adding, say, 3 pairs of M5's so that each one would handle a certain load. I imagine it is possible with a managed switch, bit it is unfortunately a little over our head at the moment.
March 9, 2013
Actually, I would use a small 4 or 5 port Gigabi switch to feed the connection for that area. So the Ethernet cable coming from the Nanostation would go to a 5 port Gigabit switch (not POE), the one port to the NVR, one port to a POE swtich and the POE switch connects to the local cameras. The NVR should only record the cameras connected locally to the POE switch. Repeat in each area. I would only use the POE switches to power the cameras, nothing else. You can get with Jesus for more technical expertise. We also have some others here with practical experience.
Most Users Ever Online: 41
Currently Browsing this Page:
Daniel Ross: 287
night hawk: 46
West Coast Jones: 29
Guest Posters: 4
Newest Members: Polemarchus, IPsurveillancecameras, clorismiller101, rmazzara, rdoddXL, kstates, ainsworthbrent, spruebrothers, speed_demon, mikie.white
Moderators: Matt Stetson: 17, Ryan Newkirk: 42, Jesus Ragusa: 278, Zeke Richey: 31, Gilberto: 101, Jose Malave: 219, javajeff: 2, mrkuchuk: 1
Administrators: Security Camera King: 9, Damon Delcoro: 8, Brad Besner: 197, Dro Simoes: 39