Have you verified that both estimates are using the same assumptions?
For example, how much bandwidth / throughput are you estimating for those 250 cameras? Are you both assuming local monitoring or no local monitoring?
From your estimate, it appears that your design allocates less than 30 cameras per server, yes? That sounds low. Is that verified by an Avigilon SE?
For example, on Avigilon's System Requirements page, they are estimating "a recording capacity of 32 MB/s (256 Mbps) from up to 128 cameras" with a quad core Xeon like the one you mention.
FYI: Avigilons design tool estimates all cameras at worst case for sizing server. All cameras more than likely will not be at their highest bitrate simultaneously in real world.
Also FYI: 256mbs is a recommended limit - we have Avigilon servers pushing over 350mbs with NO problems at all.
So, you could reduce your servers by 1/3 to 1/2 and be safe unless you are using rearly high frame rates and image quality.
Do this: set your maximum bitrate to 2000kbs - 5000kbs depending on camera and then if you want to stick to Avigilons recommended 256mbs you would need worse case 5 servers with 50 cameras each at 5000kbs. Really you probably only need 3 or 4.
This is based on significant experience utilizing Avigilon.
How can an i3 handle 250 Mps for Exacq while it requires a XEON for Avigilon?
I can confirm that Exacq can do 40 x 1MP plus 5 x 3MP plus 5 x 5mp, all set at 10 fps, variable bit rate, on a single server built with an i3 processor and 4 GB of ram. And this set-up has been replicated over 50 times in different stores of a chain. The processor usage does not even hit 20% unless you open a client on the server.
does Avigilon (forgive my lack of Avigilon knowledge) do server-side motion detection or do they use the motion detection built-in to the cameras? That could explain the difference in processor requirements.
I personally would do an RFI to have them state the values that they require to estimate storage. Most RFP's in my area are somethinig like "record all cameras at highest native resolution, 30% compression, 50% motion, 1FPS continuouse for 30 days. Then use the appropriate calculator to estimate it.
I wouldn't do exacq vision hardware for this project. Its cheaper to buy a dell r720xd, pack it full of drives and add a DAS then it is to screw around with exacq stuff. plus you get more horsepower and options. Just chose an option if that allows you the ability to throw more drives in it if you screw up your storage calcs and have to eat the cost of adding more drives. SAS drives are expensive, SAS+ a second DAS... that just hurts. Team the NICS, run the drives in a RAID, and let the system roar.
Thanks for tha advice.
Actualy, I would prefer staying with Avigilon rather than going to Exacqvision. I guess my question should have been: Is Exacq more efficient ---ON THE CPU --- than Avigilon to handle a large number of cameras.
From a "real world" application, our experience is that with a 20 TB Avigilon (Dell R520 I believe) server, RAID 5, average retention time of 30 days, motion only recording, average of 3.0MP per camera, average of 10 fps, one keyframe per second, slightly higher than default image quality/compression settings, high-traffic location, we can support around 30 cameras per Avigilon server. Typical bandwidth inbound appears to run between 150-180Mbps during the day. I've not checked nightime bandwidth usage.
Using a custom-spec'd Dell R720xd, 36TB, we can get around 40 cameras (some PTZs on tours included) per server with 30 days retention. We are very happy with the performance of the R720xd machines. Typically spec with dual 2.3Ghz Xeon, 16GB RAM, 1GB RAID card, separate 146GB 15K RAID 1 flex-bay drives for OS, and usually 12x3TB HDD.
I just purchased a R720xd with 48TB (12x4TB), but have not put into service yet. Hope to be able to support around 50 cameras with it.
One of our integrators told us about 18-20 months ago that Avigilon has a 256Mbps inbound limit. I have not confirmed or tested, but the system design tool the integrator was using would not allow more than an estimated 256Mbps camera bandwidth load per server.
IPVMU Certified | 12/22/14 07:42pm
How important is reliability? I always sell against putting more than 32 cameras per DVR/NVR - just for reliability. I have been very successful doing this. We had on customer that had 64 cameras on the DVR and it went down. They were down for a couple of days because the integrator was incompetent. We sold them a new system and split that into two machines. This also allows you to move cameras around when failure does occur.
Another consideration not mentioned - are you viewing these cameras on a monitor connected to the recording machine? Most recommend derating if you do. Decompressing live H.264 need the processor, although some manufacturers are now supporting the video processor to do most of that work.