Subscriber Discussion

Should I Use Genetec Or Exacq?

I'm looking for some professional opinions on which of the following two IP VMS solutions i should use, Genetec or ExacQ.

Some specifics of my origanization and my requirements are as follows: 100 sites; I would like to view each remote site from a single 'HQ' type location; up to 250 cameras per site; camera resolution will be comprised of 50% 1MP and 50% 3MP at each site; i want to record each camera at full resolutions at minumum of 15 frames/second; Each site will have between 8 - 15 simultaneous clients viewing up to 16 cameras for each client; I want server redundancy in case one server fails, a second or redundant server will automatically record.


Typically, Genetec fits better in large scale use cases, like you describe (100 sites, up to 250 cameras per site).

Two things specifically:

  • Large scale simultaneous viewing - This is typically done via multicast. Genetec certainly supports it while I believe Exacq does not.
  • Server redundancy - This is built in to Genetec but not Exacq. Perhaps you can run Exacq on Pivot3 to deliver that functionality.

Beyond that, frequently a major factor is what 3rd party systems you need to integrate with (access control, matrix switches, intrusion detection, etc.).


Disclosure - Director of Sales for Genetec.

I wanted to clarify one statement. Redundancy is built into the product, but we do license this feature at the archiver level(recorder) and also the directory(management server) level.

As John points out the devil is in the details. Depending on the network architecture and integration(s) either system can record the number of cameras you are looking at and provide live viewing and playback.

Thanks! Good luck. John and his group will present clear and unbiased information.

Another Genetec - slighted response. With Security Center, what he is describing is not redundancy on the video recording, but Failover, which is an included feature of Security Center 5.x.

Sean, with Genetec´s software, both Omnicast and Security Center you have two options, failover or redundant.

Thanks Harold! Just pointing out that what the OP is describing in Genetec Security Center terms is Failover, not Redundancy.

Thanks for the responses so far.....

First, please let me clarify what I meant by 'redundant'. A certain number of cameras are recording to a specific server. (Of course, there will be multiple servers if we have 200 plus cameras.) If a certain server fails or stops working for whatever reason, i would like all those cameras to automatically start recording onto a completely different server, without the need of human intervention.

Secondly, John, I'm a little confused. You mention that redundancy is built-in to the ExacQ platform but not Genetec. Then you stated to utilize a Pivot3 type solution on ExacQ. Did you mean that redundancy was built in to the Genetec product and not ExacQ?

[IPVM UPDATE: Yes, my mistake, I actually meant the other way. Sorry and updated above.]


To Undisclosed, in response to your first point, what you are actually refering to is a "Failover" function. You will need to have appropiate capacity in the "failover servers" to take over the cameras from the failed server. You can do this using the Genetec "Failover" function or alternatively use a Clustered server configuration which might prove to be costlier.

Are you familiar with the Pivot3 failover solution? Is it expensive?

Undisclosed, first, my apologies for the mistake above. I meant it was built into Genetec, not Exacq.

As for Pivot3, we have heard both strong success stories and frightening failures from people we trust. Carefully check performance. As for cost, the total cost is not that high, especially if you are using it to eliminate VMS server machines. For your application, it's worth checking in to.

How did you narrow down to these 2 choices? I don't see the connection.

Pivot3 seems to be a solution where the VMS is not aware of the underlying subsystem - this situation will never be as good as a VMS with failover support.

What Pivot3 is great for is for situations like Exacq - where failover is not yet implemented by the VMS (someone from Excaq please correct me if I am wrong - but I could not find this feature even in the enterprice version according to their datasheets/website).

Undisclosed, Genetec can achieve your goals, as I understand them from this thread. Genetec offers redundant recording of cameras to multiple locations, archiving failover (consistent within your second post, first item), Directory failover (consider that the main system database), and even some load balancing. With their auxiliary archiving capability you can save separate video streams from the same camera to different locations (e.g. Record one stream at high resolution and frame rate locally and record a second stream to a separate, offsite location at a lower frame rate and resolution).

I am an integrator and have designed and implemented Genetec systems with all of the aforementioned capabilities. We have been very pleased with all the features built into the system. We can use standard servers and don't have to implement expensive, third-party failover and high-availability software packages like Legato or NEC ExpressCluster. You will pay more for Genetec software than Exacq, but Genetec is a better fit for your application and requirements (as far as I can tell from your descriptions). There are also many more cost factors than the software that you should consider in your analysis (server requirements, maintenance, training, etc.).

Note 1: We have also implemented Exacq systems work extremely well, but don't have the capabilities and protections you desire. I am a fan of Exacq...applied to the right application.

Note 2: We have also implemented quite a few Pivot3 systems. They excel in centralized architectures, but don't fit your distributed application quite so well.

As others have mentioned, careful architecture planning is a must! I wish you luck.