![]() ![]() So BI has to ask the NAS for the data, the NAS has to read it and send it to the BI machine which then has to display it all while both units are still writing the new recordings. Why handle the data twice? Now as the data is being written, you decide to review a recording. BI gets the feeds, checks for motion etc, and passed the data to the NAS that then has to handle it to write it to the drives. If you have the NAS be the storage, then you have two machines handling your cam data at the same time. I have a QNAP NAS for the last 8-9 years or so. All three drives are set to delete as needed. I split the 18 cams over the three drives. I have three WD 10TB Purple drives in my BI machine. Or would it be preferable to record directly to the internal hard drive of the Blue Iris computer? If doing this, I assume it's possible to, in real time, backup or copy the data to the NAS but then the Blue Iris computer must work a little bit harder. What are your thoughts regarding a NAS? Is it a viable (efficient & responsive) option to use the NAS as the direct recording drive for Blue Iris? I do like the fact that I could set up a NAS so that a copy of the data is automatically retained and drives can be swapped out if they fail, hopefully not both of them at the same time. (I have wired for 17 locations, overkill, but will be 7 - 8 cameras to start with and work it out from there) I have only practised with Blue Iris with one camera, getting ready to move into a new house in two weeks. It appears it's a choice between Synology or QNAP and then either a two or four-bay unit. ![]() I will say looking at snapshot images grabbed in BI the H.265 has more apparent artifacts than the recoded H.264 does for the same patch of sidewalk, but idk how to tell if those artifacts are in the video (from compression) or are caused by BI open/snapshot.Ok, I'll preface this with the fact that I do not yet have a NAS drive and have only started researching them. I don't think the 50% quoted by bp2008 is entirely out of the question. Resolution was increased from 2.99MP to 5.04MP (168%) H.264-encode, 2304x1296 VBR 6 2FPS Iframe: 4įile sizes range: 8.30GB to 9.13GB average: 8.58GBĭata transmission (from remote router traffic logs): ~17.4GBįile sizes range: 6.32GB to 6.39GB average: 6.36GBĭata transmission (from remote router traffic logs): ~14.7GB ** the data transmission includes 3 cameras, two were left unchanged, and I don't report the file sizes for those BVR files in any of the comparison details, but I cant easily separate them from the data transmission number. Update (for whatever it is worth) : since changing the configuration in BI from re-encoding the 3MP stream into H.264 I can provide the following "take it with a grain of salt" data points: Open to testing different things with these cameras, or measuring a different way, but the router itself doesn't have built-in per-IP bandwidth consumption metrics. I recall when I was installing the 5MP camera, the actual data rate was noticeably lower with H.265, not 50% but maybe 35%, and in the case where there is very little movement I think the impact is potentially greater for H.265 than even H.264. IN: H.264H 1280x960 VBR4 2FPS Iframe: 4 (indoors, no movement, light changes twice daily): 50GB ![]() Was wanting to stay under my data cap, but will raise FY to max resolution for the remainder of this month since I ended the month 400GB under the limit.īY: H.265 1920x1080 VBR4 2FPS Iframe: 4 (indoor, essentially zero movement): 15.6GBįY: H.265 2304x1296 VBR 6 2FPS Iframe: 4 (outdoor, lots of movement, street/cars): 324 GB For whatever little it is worth, and I know this isn't a perfect scientific way to do this, but here is the BVR storage data for 3 cameras at the same location for very nearly the same time period (7/1 to 7/31 - give or take a few hours on each one), direct to disk. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |