Multicast Enabled - Latency Issues?

bugsysiegals

bugsysiegals

Getting the hang of it
Nov 1, 2018
179
27
Racine, WI
I've noticed my Blue Iris iPhone app has been very slow to connect recently. I only have 4 cameras connected at the moment all of which have multicast enabled (default).

With regards to multicast, since they all have the same default multicast IP addresses, will this cause network latency or other network issues even though I'm not connecting to their 224 IP range? Secondly, since I have Blue Iris recording the main stream, FireStick TV connecting using TinyCamPro (would like to add to a few TV's), and occasionally use my iPhone or VPN from work to connect to Blue Iris, could I improve performance by setting up unique multicast addresses for each camera and connecting everything to that address, including Blue Iris?

FWIW - my cameras main streams are set to H265, decoding off, 15 FPS, VBR, Quality 6, 4096 MBR, 15 I-Frame and substream 1 enabled set to H265, decodign off, D1, 15 FPS, VBR, Quality 6, 512 MBR, 15 I-Frame. My i7 processor was at about 22% CPU with 3 cameras connected and then jumped to 30% after connecting the 4th camera. It seems I have some issue to resolve before I continue connecting more cameras...
 
I discovered why the iOS app was connecting so slow ... turns out my Cisco PoE switch is not a Gigabit switch and when I went from having it and the BI PC plugged into the router to adding a second NIC in the PC and only the PC connected to the router, I no longer had Gigabit connectivity through the router. I've reverted back to sending everything through the router which seems to be fine for now but will definitely be looking for a Gigabit switch. :(

That said, I'm still wondering if I should be using multicast versus main/sub streams???
 
bugsysiegals said:
I discovered why the iOS app was connecting so slow ... turns out my Cisco PoE switch is not a Gigabit switch and when I went from having it and the BI PC plugged into the router to adding a second NIC in the PC and only the PC connected to the router, I no longer had Gigabit connectivity through the router. I've reverted back to sending everything through the router which seems to be fine for now but will definitely be looking for a Gigabit switch. :(

That said, I'm still wondering if I should be using multicast versus main/sub streams???
Click to expand...
you dont need multicast for your low load.
 
Thanks Fenderman, I appreciate your wisdom ... just trying to keep things running best as possible since the kids typically have 80Mb/sec in traffic with their Xbox gaming.
 
tangent said:
LAN to LAN bandwidth is not the same as LAN to WAN.
Click to expand...

I’m not a network expert so is it true to say if they’re burning almost 100Mb/s but it’s all Lan2wan traffic that it doesn’t impact, or impacts little, wan2wan traffic?

If the router is a gigabit router this means theoretical limit of 1Gb/s lan2lan traffic and lan2wan has little or no impact?

I’m not sure why but my BI PC was running 23-30% CPU with the PoE switch bottlenecking the traffic and dropped to 13% by simply plugging the PC and cameras into the router and restoring Gigabit connectivity.
 
LAN to WAN: traffic between your local network and the internet
LAN to LAN: traffic between devices on your local network.

If you're using quality cameras with Blue Iris, all the traffic between the cameras and your Blue Iris server is on your local network.
*If you'd trying to record something like a shitty nest camera with Blue Iris, the video first goes to the could and is then streamed back to your blue iris machine.

Otherwise your cams only use your WAN (wide area network) bandwidth when you're viewing your cameras remotely.

In general, traffic that's contained to your Local Area Network (LAN) shouldn't have much impact on other users trying to get or send data to the internet.
Caveat here, some network hardware is capable of far less than the specs claim and can be a bottleneck. Also some routers have firmware updates that may fix LAN to LAN performance issues.
The best practice here is generally to avoid sending the video for all your cameras through your router. Instead connect your Blue Iris machine directly to your PoE switch. The PoE switch should be connected to your router, but in this scenario the video only flows through the router when you're viewing it on another device local or remote.

bugsysiegals said:
I’m not sure why but my BI PC was running 23-30% CPU with the PoE switch bottlenecking the traffic and dropped to 13% by simply plugging the PC and cameras into the router and restoring Gigabit connectivity.
Click to expand...
That sounds like you could use a PoE switch with a Gigabit uplink. Reducing your bit rate / frame rate could also help.

What model of switch do you have?
How many cameras and what models?
 
Thanks for the explanation. I've shared specs below.

I bought my switch for $250 back in 2014 and unfortunately am finally coming to use it 4 years later when it's only worth ~$50! The switch has 48 Ethernet 10/100 ports with IEEE 802.3af and Cisco prestandard PoE and 4 SFP-based Gigabit Ethernet ports. If I understand this correctly, the traffic between ports (cameras) is limited to 100Mb/s, perhaps this is fine since cameras don't talk to each other, and the traffic between each port and the PC could be at Gigabit speeds if I buy a Gigabit SFP module and connect the PC to it? In this arrangement, the cameras avoid traffic on the router as their direct to the PC, and I use my 2nd NIC on the PC to connect to the router for broadcasting Blue Iris feeds over the WAN or to other devices on the LAN (Firestick TV, iPhone, etc.)?

My switch is in my basement wood shop so I don't mind the noise of the fans but I suspect it will be inhaling dust in short time. That, the fact it probably draws more power than necessary, and that I'd prefer a newer Gigabit switch, perhaps even more power, lead me to want a newer switch, perhaps fanless, but with Christmas it'll have to wait. Or perhaps this switch is good enough if I protect it from the wood dust and I should just get my money out of it??
 
The way those switches are designed, especially the older ones, they cut costs by having a lot of 100 Mbps ports and only a few gigabit ports intended to be used for uplinks or for devices that require more than 100 Mbps speed. Cameras are fine on 100 Mbps ports since individual video streams from IP cameras tend to max out around 25 Mbps (usually much lower). The XBOX would even be fine on a 100 Mbps port, though if your internet connection is much faster than that it might be advisable to make sure the XBOX has a gigabit link to the internet just so it can download software and updates faster. Most of the time an XBOX's bandwidth consumption will be minimal so it would technically be fine at 100 Mbps.

The key is understanding where your network traffic goes so you can ensure all links have sufficient capacity for the traffic they will be carrying. The Blue Iris PC, the router, and any other gigabit switches should be on gigabit ports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fenderman
That said,

bp2008 said:
The way those switches are designed, especially the older ones, they cut costs by having a lot of 100 Mbps ports and only a few gigabit ports intended to be used for uplinks or for devices that require more than 100 Mbps speed. Cameras are fine on 100 Mbps ports since individual video streams from IP cameras tend to max out around 25 Mbps (usually much lower). The XBOX would even be fine on a 100 Mbps port, though if your internet connection is much faster than that it might be advisable to make sure the XBOX has a gigabit link to the internet just so it can download software and updates faster. Most of the time an XBOX's bandwidth consumption will be minimal so it would technically be fine at 100 Mbps.

The key is understanding where your network traffic goes so you can ensure all links have sufficient capacity for the traffic they will be carrying. The Blue Iris PC, the router, and any other gigabit switches should be on gigabit ports.
Click to expand...

To clarify, both Xbox's are connected with WiFi and surprisingly have no issues keeping up.

Let me take a second to explain my setup before asking my next questions. My router connects to my cable modem which has ~200Mbps WAN connection. The router provides WiFi to Xbox's, TV's, Raspberry Pi's, Smart Devices, etc. I have a few TV's connected with Ethernet to a Gigabit hub which connects to a port on the router. Additionally, I have a PC running Blue Iris which connects it's Gigabit port to a port on the router. Finally, I have the IP Cameras connected to the Cisco switch (100Mbps) which connects to a Gigabit NIC on the PC but is not using SFP port and is therefore limited to 100Mbps.

My questions ...
  1. If the Cisco switch's ports are limited to 100Mbps, why would disconnecting it from the computer and connecting it to the router allow my iOS app to connect almost instantly versus typically failing to connect (CPU usage went down also)? It would seem that since I'm not using SFP port to connect to either, I'm limited to 100Mbps, and there would be no improvement. In fact, I'd think it would be even slower through the router since it has additional processes/traffic versus direct to the PC.
  2. If I buy a SFP module, or get a new switch, is it better to connect the switch with IP Cameras directly to the PC or to the router? I assume if I'm recording IP Cameras with Blue Iris, it's better to avoid the additional traffic running through the router since it's unnecessary and can be sent directly to the PC with the PC being sent to the router which only communicates as needed?
  3. Regarding all other Ethernet devices ... is there any logic as to when I should connect them to the Gigabit hub which connects to the router versus connecting them to the Cisco switch which may connect to the PC which connects to the internet?
  4. Regarding Gigabit ports, it seems my switch will be fine as long as I get a SFP module so it's uplink is 1000Mbps?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom