34 720p Cameras - Will adding a storage server increase performance?

[StratoIT]

I currently have a box with an i5-4690 and 16GB running 34 high-def cameras. The cameras are recording direct-to-disc spread out over four 4TB WD RED hard drives.

Performance is terrible. The CPU is always at 100% if Blue Iris is running, and the PC frequently locks up completely if you try to review footage. Exporting to AVI crashes Blue Iris completely. I have lowered the cameras down to 15fps, but the owner doesn't want to go any lower than that. Nothing else runs on the PC and Blue Iris is exempted from virus scans. The main PC has an SSD where Blue Iris and the OS are installed.

If I add a FreeNAS server and have Blue Iris write to that instead of to the local discs, would it improve performance for viewing/exporting on the main PC?

Thanks for the help.

 

[technet]

System's task manager and perfmon would point the bottlenecks, if more than CPU time. Have you tried with hardware acceleration enabled in Options > Cameras?


Have you considered replacing this setup with a really strong i7?

 

[nayr]

you need a better BI Server, adding a NAS wont help shit..

34 cameras is alot for BI.. its going to require alot of horsepower that's apparently too much for your i5.. you have to get the load off 100%, thats your issue.

 

[fenderman]

I currently have a box with an i5-4690 and 16GB running 34 high-def cameras. The cameras are recording direct-to-disc spread out over four 4TB WD RED hard drives.

Performance is terrible. The CPU is always at 100% if Blue Iris is running, and the PC frequently locks up completely if you try to review footage. Exporting to AVI crashes Blue Iris completely. I have lowered the cameras down to 15fps, but the owner doesn't want to go any lower than that. Nothing else runs on the PC and Blue Iris is exempted from virus scans. The main PC has an SSD where Blue Iris and the OS are installed.

If I add a FreeNAS server and have Blue Iris write to that instead of to the local discs, would it improve performance for viewing/exporting on the main PC?

Thanks for the help.

You need an i7-haswell/skylake for that load. Though it should not be stuck at 100 percent.
Are you running the DEMO? if so, direct to disk is NOT working.
Have you enabled hardware acceleration? Did you double check that EVERY camera is set to direct to disk? Have you limited the live preview rate to less than 15fps? It will still record at 15.
https://www.ipcamtalk.com/showthread.php/13468-Great-deal-on-i7-6700-EliteDesk
If you are using remote desktop software that is and running headless that causes lots of cpu usage.

 

[StratoIT]

You need an i7-haswell/skylake for that load. Though it should not be stuck at 100 percent.
Are you running the DEMO? if so, direct to disk is NOT working.
Have you enabled hardware acceleration? Did you double check that EVERY camera is set to direct to disk? Have you limited the live preview rate to less than 15fps? It will still record at 15.
https://www.ipcamtalk.com/showthread.php/13468-Great-deal-on-i7-6700-EliteDesk
If you are using remote desktop software that is and running headless that causes lots of cpu usage.

I have limited the preview rate and enabled hardware acceleration. That has lowered CPU usage to 45%!!! Thanks for the tips.

I'm still interested in adding the NAS for additional storage. Would having the main PC preview/record to the NAS affect performance negatively?

 

[fenderman]

I have limited the preview rate and enabled hardware acceleration. That has lowered CPU usage to 45%!!! Thanks for the tips.

I'm still interested in adding the NAS for additional storage. Would having the main PC preview/record to the NAS affect performance negatively?

That is good to hear. Local storage is always best....

 

[nayr]

storing video on a remote NAS now requires you keep 2 Pc's operational to maintain your video surveillance.. its an unnecessary point of failure and not recommended.

 

[StratoIT]

storing video on a remote NAS now requires you keep 2 Pc's operational to maintain your video surveillance.. its an unnecessary point of failure and not recommended.

Thank you for the response. I will shelve that idea and upgrade the current server.