Member Discussion

Pros And Cons To Enabling Multiple Streams On Large System?

We have a site with a high camera count being run by multiple servers scattered throughout a facility. They hired a guard service and now there are multiple guards monitoring cameras 24/7. Each building has its' own server and the cameras are on a separate network. Each server is plugged into the corporate network via a separate NIC on the server. So, right now all of these guards are streaming the video in megapixel resolutions at higher framerates over the corporate network.

Would it be beneficial to setup a 2nd stream of VGA quality with a slower framerate and allow their cleints to only view these streams? These lower quality streams would not record but just be for monitoring only. Right now my private networks and recorders are running 100% so I don't want to open up a can of worms.

What could be the possible downsides? The platform is Exacq.

Yes. We cover doing this with Exacq here: VMS Multistreaming Comparison

Also, you could look at using the Exacq web client (if possible / allowed), since it uses transcoding: VMS Remote Monitoring Tested

I feel that running the web client and transcoding all that video for multiple users will put a load on the server that I don't want. Is this a valid assumption? I don't want to in any way put more load on these servers to prevent them from doing their job. Right now we aren't running the web server at all on these systems. I care about recording video first and monitoring second so I don't want to compromise that. From my observation these guards spend most of their time talking to employees anway instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing.

I will look into your article. Thank you.

I wouldn't say it is a guaranteed benefit, though it definitely might be worth doing. I would say it depends a lot on which network, the camera or the corporate, is more saturated, as well as server capacity.

Setting an up an additional stream on the camera would necessarily add to the traffic on the camera network, even while at the same time it might reduce traffic on the corporate network to the same or greater degree. It all depends on the use cases.

  • Are all cameras being displayed at all times somewhere, or are some not?
  • How many cameras are there?
  • How many clients are active at one time?
  • What type of clients mobile/PC are in use?

Also, if the camera LAN bandwidth is limited but the servers have CPU capacity, transcoding as John says may be the way to go.

To clarify, when you say "running 100%" , do you mean at 100% capacity or 100% uptime?

There are 2-3 guards streaming 16 cameras from multiple servers at all times. In addition there could be up to 2-3+ others streaming live or viewing playback at various times throughout the day. There are over 100 cameras but probably only 1/2 or less might be important for the guards to use. There are no webservers running and no mobile usage at all. When I say 100% I mean that I have NO issues on my end with the system right now and I don't want to create any just to reduce the overhead this streaming is creating on their network. We haven't yet been asked to solve a problem at this point but I want to have a solution if the question arises. I'm always trying to forsee problems that might arise as systems grow so I can plan accordingly and have the solutions in my back pocket.

Thank you

[I work for Exacq]

Undisclosed B accurately describes the tradeoffs. Creating lower resolution streams adds bandwidth to the camera network but reduces bandwidth on the corporate network if guards are monitoring the lower resolution streams.

I'm not sure the web service and transcoding for the web client would save bandwidth. The transcoded video is MJPEG, which consumes *more* bandwidth than h.264. You'll save processing overhead at the cllient, but not bandwidth. The only way you'd save bandwidth is if the screen was very small (like mobile devices), then the resized, transcoded video is also much smaller.