Multi NVR setup

[Hawk108]

Hi Folks-
I installed a 16 channel Ip video surveillance system for a local client, with 8 IP cameras. It was for a large farm, having two main "Hubs", the home and the barn. I installed a ubiquity wireless bridge to connect the two "hubs", and connected the PoE switches to the main router, and the NVR is also connected to the main router. So no NVR PoE ports were used. All was well.
Not long ago I added a couple of cameras in the barn, and a second NVR. There is a total of 10 cameras, but the two NVRs are 16 channel, so it was only due to each location wanting view of a different group of cameras. The trouble started when the cameras would occasionally lose video at the main NVR. Not for long, but an irritating occasional flicker. Now it seems that the more I mess with the camera registrations, the worse it gets! This seemed like a simple project, but has proved otherwise. I would like to know if my thought process is correct here: I registered the first 8 cams on the first NVR, the additional cameras on the second. I tried initializeg the missing cameras, etc. But I think I should just set them each at the camera level with static IPS, and let the NVRs do their thing. I wounder how this aggregates to the web stream? Would it show up as 2 systems? I just want the cameras showing and recording stable. I should mention also, that the client's DSL speed is about 3 MBPS, on a good day, so there is undoubtedly some congestion issues. Thoughts?

 

[mat200]

Hi Folks-
I installed a 16 channel Ip video surveillance system for a local client, with 8 IP cameras. It was for a large farm, having two main "Hubs", the home and the barn. I installed a ubiquity wireless bridge to connect the two "hubs", and connected the PoE switches to the main router, and the NVR is also connected to the main router. So no NVR PoE ports were used. All was well.
Not long ago I added a couple of cameras in the barn, and a second NVR. There is a total of 10 cameras, but the two NVRs are 16 channel, so it was only due to each location wanting view of a different group of cameras. The trouble started when the cameras would occasionally lose video at the main NVR. Not for long, but an irritating occasional flicker. Now it seems that the more I mess with the camera registrations, the worse it gets! This seemed like a simple project, but has proved otherwise. I would like to know if my thought process is correct here: I registered the first 8 cams on the first NVR, the additional cameras on the second. I tried initializeg the missing cameras, etc. But I think I should just set them each at the camera level with static IPS, and let the NVRs do their thing. I wounder how this aggregates to the web stream? Would it show up as 2 systems? I just want the cameras showing and recording stable. I should mention also, that the client's DSL speed is about 3 MBPS, on a good day, so there is undoubtedly some congestion issues. Thoughts?

The main router is often overloaded when you route a lot of video over it ... put a good switch under the main router and connect the poe switches to that switch .. also have the nvrs connect through that switch .. and ideally static assign the ips to reduce dhcp server failure related issues.

 

[Hawk108]

The main router is often overloaded when you route a lot of video over it ... put a good switch under the main router and connect the poe switches to that switch .. also have the nvrs connect through that switch .. and ideally static assign the ips to reduce dhcp server failure related issues.

I thought that static IP's would be better, even if there weren't actual IP conflicts, it would take the load off the DHCP server and have to increase performance, even if only theoretically. But as to congestion to the main router...everything ultimately is funneled through that, so I am not understanding how putting a switch inder the main router would help,,,there is just one line going into the liked PoE switches, and 1 line going into the router from the main NVR...and I installed in 2021, and it worked fine until a few month ago (I hate intermittent problems...either break or don't break)...can you explain a little further?

 

[mat200]

I thought that static IP's would be better, even if there weren't actual IP conflicts, it would take the load off the DHCP server and have to increase performance, even if only theoretically. But as to congestion to the main router...everything ultimately is funneled through that, so I am not understanding how putting a switch inder the main router would help,,,there is just one line going into the liked PoE switches, and 1 line going into the router from the main NVR...and I installed in 2021, and it worked fine until a few month ago (I hate intermittent problems...either break or don't break)...can you explain a little further?

Hi hawk

Just a observation many of us have had in terms of best practices ..

In terms of what exactly is happening in your setup .. we would need to do more analysis

At best at this time I can only give quick off the top of my mind assistance based on what others have shared here.

Typically the consumer grade routers eventually have issues over time when too much camera footage is passed through them as well as the typical internet related work load .. numerous reasons for that .. sometimes restarting helps ..

 

[Hawk108]

Hi hawk

Just a observation many of us have had in terms of best practices ..

In terms of what exactly is happening in your setup .. we would need to do more analysis

At best at this time I can only give quick off the top of my mind assistance based on what others have shared here.

Typically the consumer grade routers eventually have issues over time when too much camera footage is passed through them as well as the typical internet related work load .. numerous reasons for that .. sometimes restarting helps ..

Good point, and would make sense of why it worked fine for so long, then didn't. What I don't understand though is how installing a switch that would have one input and one output to the router would help. Replacing the router? I could see that...this is an Arris modem/router however, and came from the ISP, Frontier. I didn't think they could be changed by the consumer, but I may be wrong. The other elephant in the room, however, is the 3 Mbps bandwidth supplied by the ISP...on a good day...

 

[wittaj]

Cameras connected to Wifi routers (whether wifi or not) are problematic for surveillance cameras because they are always streaming and passing data. And the data demands go up with motion and then you lose signal. A lost packet and it has to resend. It can bring the whole network down if trying to send cameras through a wifi router. At the very least it can slow down your entire system.

Unlike Netflix and other streaming services that buffer a movie, these cameras do not buffer up part of the video, so drop outs are frequent, especially once you start adding distance. You would be amazed how much streaming services buffer - don't believe me, start watching something and unplug your router and watch how much longer you can watch NetFlix before it freezes - mine goes 45 seconds. Now do the same with a camera connected to a router and it is fairly instantaneous (within the latency of the stream itself)...

The same issue applies even with the hard-wired cameras trying to send all this non-buffer video stream through a router. Most consumer grade wifi routers are not designed to pass the constant video stream data of cameras, and since they do not buffer, you get these issues. The consumer routers are just not designed for this kind of traffic, even a GB speed router.

So the more cameras you add, the bigger the potential for issues.

So the reason you connect everything on a switch below the router is to take that demand off the router. Some routers attempt to route regardless. You want these cameras to work even if you take the router out of the picture.

We see stuff like this all the time here. As soon as someone takes the traffic load off the router everything improves.

I have read before and you can find articles on it that says it is OK to use a an old wifi router as simply a plain Ole switch because if you turn off wifi and dhcp it simply becomes an unmanged switch. I had a few cameras connected that way to an old switch I had and those were the cameras with problems. As soon as I replaced the switch the problems went away.

 

[Hawk108]

That certainly makes sense. but all cameras (and the remote NVR) are going through unmanaged switches until they end up as one line going into the ISP's modem/router along with the Main NVR. I don't quite understand how adding another unmanaged switch in the chain would change to congestion at the ISP's arris modem...I am aware that there might be something I'm missing...buy the only wireless router is a TP link, downstream, basically used as an access point. I can write a schematic. of the wiring diagram, but all of what your saying is true, but how does adding another switch reduce the unbuffered video data that still ends up at the ISP's modem? I am intrigued at the Idea; separating the camera traffic and only feeding the substream would be awesome; I thought if they got a sperate hotspot (basically a second network), that would probably. Solve the issue... but I am intrigued if there is a way to separate the main data traffic...but I don't see how to do that without just plugging them into the main line of daisy chained cameras and plugging them into the main NVR, making it a stand alone system. I am more than willing to be taught though! my only answer so far was to mitigate bandwidth consumption by lowering resolutions, and setting all IP addresses to static Ips. Other than that...what am I missing? Thanks you so much for your valuable time!

 

[wittaj]

If you unplug the router, can you still see all the cameras and NVRs when on the local LAN?

If the answer is NO, then the data is passing thru the router.

Take the router out of the equation.

The only time the data should pass thru the router is when viewing remotely and not on local LAN.

You could daisy chain them all to the NVR and plug the NVR into the switch and then a cable from the switch to the router.

Does the TP Link have access to the internet? If so, that is likely the problem too. the router can be used as an access point but not have internet capabilities.

 

[Hawk108]

If I unplug the MAIN NVR from the router (which, to make sure we're speaking of the same thing, it's the modem/router from the ISP), we will see no cameras on that NVR, but we still would see cameras on the remote NVR (although my initial problem was that cameras added later, along with the second NVR were dropping, and upon restart, either difficult to find or wouldn't connect, and it seemed specific or at least tied into which NVR had initialized them). All cameras converge into one switch that goes to the modem/router. If I unplug that, no cameras are seen anywhere. If there is a way to separate the main traffic and video and just feed the dubstream to the router (modem) that would be awesome, but I don't know how to do that...through subnetting? It would be wonderful for security reasons as well. but if all of the cameras converge eventually to one switch, I don't see how to do that...it would be nice if I could plug that final downstream switch's uplink to the NVR internet port (like a standalone system, but then have a second output from the main NVR that just ports the substream to the modem...is something like that possible? I should note that the wireless bridging I am using between the local and remote areas is a Ubiquiti 2.4 Ghz powerbeam setup (Customer is afraid od medical implications of 5G1).
I am anxiously awaiting your insight!

 

[looney2ns]

If you place a gigabit switch, at the Arris, then plug EVERYTHING into that switch instead of the ARris, that will take the load off the router.
Then take one cable from that same switch and plug that cable into a Arris lan port.

 

[Hawk108]

Yes...I can do that...there aren't many inputs, but essentially that is like separating the modem from the router, so to speak...that makes sense. I have a couple (hopefully final) questions: first, what you described takes the load off of the router, but is there a way of separating the main, hi resolution traffic and isolating it to be seen and recorded on the NVRs, and just sending the sub stream out over the internet (probably, by using managed switches...?) and also, your above fix might be all I need, but should I just assign static Ips to all cameras AND NVRs? I could use the IP addresses that were already assigned, and just take DHCP out of the equation...I think it would help. Of course, if we got Starlink and decent internet speed we probably wouldn't have any of these issues. Let me know your thoughts, and thanks a ton!

 

[wittaj]

As long as you have enabled the substreams, that is what any mobile viewer will be viewing in multi-camera views.

Best practice is to assign static IPs when possible. It isn't as critical for cameras behind the NVR "router" as that is essentially assigning them IPs.

 

[Hawk108]

I guess I was looking at it this way...none of the cameras are plugged into the PoE ports of the NVRs, they are plugged into PoE switches and connected to the network, just like the NVRs, and so getting their IP addresses from the ISP router, and all in the same IP range...so from a security as well as a network congestion point of view, it just seems like a bad idea...thoughts?

 

[wittaj]

That is correct.

Get them off the router as mentioned above and assign them static IPs that are different than the internet and assign the camera IP as the gateway to further prevent it getting out.

 

[Hawk108]

So set each Camera
s Gateway IP to be the same as their Static IP?

 

[wittaj]

Yes.

 

[Hawk108]

I have never even heard of that! Thank you so much for your help!

 

[Hawk108]

Hi Wittaj...I just wanted to report back and thank you so much for your help...I have reconfigured three system configurations as you described, and the results were fantastic. I saw about a 75% reduction in network congestion, and it made these network act, well, like they didn't have the throughput of a cocktail mixer! Great help, and much appreciated!

 

[mat200]

Hi Wittaj...I just wanted to report back and thank you so much for your help...I have reconfigured three system configurations as you described, and the results were fantastic. I saw about a 75% reduction in network congestion, and it made these network act, well, like they didn't have the throughput of a cocktail mixer! Great help, and much appreciated!

Good to hear!