Blue Iris kills my i7 pc

christianlec said:
Yeah, that's just it, the wifi signal is strong, reception is great, until I run BlueIris, then the whole thing falls apart. I have now changed the camera receive buffers to 10MB and all frame rates are 10fps.

The cameras are all updated to the latest firmware (and Web UI).

BI still seems to be bogging down my network, when I quit BI I can access the Web Interface to the cameras with ease, but when I start up BI again, I am then unable to get to the web interfaces of the cameras, like BI is using up a lot of traffic on my network.
Click to expand...
When you run blue iris, there is a constant stream pulled from each camera...when you test without blue iris, you need to test will all cameras open - each in a separate window..
 
Good point. So I did open up all of the cameras in separate windows, and things loaded very smoothly. Much more smoothly than BI. I will say that with the larger receive buffer, it seems as though things have marginally improved. I wonder if I could go back to 4.0 or even 3.x to see if there are any differences in performance, just as a test.
 
My guess is that because these are wifi cameras (all 7 of them) that as soon as you are asking each camera for the MJPEG feeds that it is causing your network bandwidth to be stressed. From what I have been told, these cameras will only send data on request, such as you are doing when launching BI. Once you shut down BI, cameras are no longer sending out data, thus your network is "freed" of the congestion.

To test this theory you could unplug all but one camera and start BI. Attempt to login to camer from browser interface and see if it works. If it does, add in another camera by plugging back in and login to its interface. Keep going and see if the more cameras you add back in if your login attempts get slower and slower. Keep BI running the whole time ensuring that when you plug a camera back in that BI sees it before you attempt to login to camera interface.

You might have to result to hardwire for many of your cams.
 
ruppmeister said:
My guess is that because these are wifi cameras (all 7 of them) that as soon as you are asking each camera for the MJPEG feeds that it is causing your network bandwidth to be stressed. From what I have been told, these cameras will only send data on request, such as you are doing when launching BI. Once you shut down BI, cameras are no longer sending out data, thus your network is "freed" of the congestion.

To test this theory you could unplug all but one camera and start BI. Attempt to login to camer from browser interface and see if it works. If it does, add in another camera by plugging back in and login to its interface. Keep going and see if the more cameras you add back in if your login attempts get slower and slower. Keep BI running the whole time ensuring that when you plug a camera back in that BI sees it before you attempt to login to camera interface.

You might have to result to hardwire for many of your cams.
Click to expand...


I can confirm, after removing 5 of the 7 wireless cams from BlueIris, I can get normal recording and no dropouts. I have decided that there are really only 2 cams that I need to make sure record, and the rest can send still shots via email. This seems to be a working solution, since hard wiring all of them was not a viable possibility.


Thank you all for your help.
 
Probably already mentioned, heck even by me, but no need to record video at 30 fps. 10-15 is fine. You're not filming a movie and you won't lose anything meaningful at that frame rate.
 
christianlec said:
Excuse me for posting this again in a new forum, but after continuing to read, I realized that my question was better placed here, instead of the other forum.

This is the problem I am facing, similar to what is above, it appears to be with my network traffic only, as when BI is running, I can accomplish little else on my network.

BI is only using a small part of my processor for my 7 cameras, 34%, but when I run BI, I can no longer log into each of my individual cameras, they appear to be suffering from too much network traffic being flung around on my network. The moment I quit BI, I can access and control all of my cameras individually very easily, with no dropouts.


Running BI again results in again, cameras being dropped from the BI interface.


I have tried just simply disabling Symantec Endpoint Protection to see if network performance improved, but there appeared to be no change at all, cameras still would keep dropping intermittently.


I only run Win7 and BI 4.1.0.3 w32 on this machine. Nothing more.


Does anyone have any ideas? I never had this problem until recently, somewhere between the 4.0 and 4.1 updates I believe. BI 3 had been running smoothly with no issues and no networking problems for some time.


Thanks
Click to expand...
Is your computer dual channel RAM and if so do you have matching sticks in it? Passmark won't tell whole story on computer if not configured right
 
MartyO said:
So for any type of usage of BI, you say nadda. OK, lets talk about when BI encodes video and audio, MPEG to H264 or export/convert ....
Click to expand...
Yes any type of usage...dual channel when it does show improvement for video encoding its about 3-4 percent. That is a number that you cannot feel in the real world. You are better off getting a better processor. This is a bunch of hype sold by the manufacturers to customers.
 
fenderman said:
Yes any type of usage...dual channel when it does show improvement for video encoding its about 3-4 percent. That is a number that you cannot feel in the real world. You are better off getting a better processor. This is a bunch of hype sold by the manufacturers to customers.
Click to expand...

3-4 percent, cannot feel, well it depends on the what I'm doing.
 
fenderman said:
Doesn't matter what you are doing you cant feel it. Again, spend the money wisely, on a better cpu, better cameras etc...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I had just looked in the fridge prior to reply. When I looked I saw an ODouls and a Guinness. Only 4 percent separate them, but I was sure I would feel the difference.
 
MartyO said:
Sorry, I had just looked in the fridge prior to reply. When I looked I saw an ODouls and a Guinness. Only 4 percent separate them, but I was sure I would feel the difference.
Click to expand...
Setting aside the issues comparing alcohol content to memory speed, the difference between Odoul's (0.4 percent alcohol) and a Guinness draft (4.0 percent) is actually 900%...:D..its all about percent change not the actual percentage...
More importantly, we can all agree that a dual channel memory setup, will not solve the users network congestion issues.
 
fenderman said:
Setting aside the issues comparing alcohol content to memory speed, the difference between Odoul's (0.4 percent alcohol) and a Guinness draft (4.0 percent) is actually 900%...:D..its all about percent change not the actual percentage...
More importantly, we can all agree that a dual channel memory setup, will not solve the users network congestion issues.
Click to expand...
I think your write about the network issue, but not on liquid stuff. Why, well water has .00001% and ODouls has .4 percent, 40,000,000% . Be careful with math interpreting math.
 
MartyO said:
I think your write about the network issue, but not on liquid stuff. Why, well water has .00001% and ODouls has .4 percent, 40,000000% . Be careful with math interpreting math.
Click to expand...
When you start with a meaningless number then yes...
The point was that there is more than a 4 percent difference in the content and therefore you notice the difference.
This type of benchmark only result sales gimmicks are just that...there are better things to spend money on than dual channel memory.
 
fenderman said:
When you start with a meaningless number then yes...
The point was that there is more than a 4 percent difference in the content and therefore you notice the difference.
This type of benchmark only result sales gimmicks are just that...there are better things to spend money on than dual channel memory.
Click to expand...
I
ODouls is meaningless, but dual channel has its merits.
 
This helped me so much. I have 5 QCAM 3MP bullets that were using 90% on a Intel i7 5820K. After setting all of them to direct to disk it dropped to less then 15% MAX. Thank you all for your valuable information.
 
I second the above post. The info pertaining to high CPU and direct to disk helped me reduce my CPU. I am running 4 3mp Swann (Rebranded Hikvisions), 2 Pyle PIPCAM15's (Rebranded Foscam), and a usb webcam. My BI pc is an HP Mini PC. HP Pavillion 300-030 Core I3 1.9Ghz dual core with 8gb RAM and 1TB 5400rpm drive. I use this machine as a multimedia PC on my TV as well. With BI running as a service and nothing else running, CPU on average was 45-50%. With BI open, it would jump to around 90. With BI closed and if I wanted to use PC to stream Web video like Fox News, CNN, Cartoon Network, etc. CPU would pretty much max out.


Changing to direct to disk seems to have fixed that. Now with BI closed and nothing else happening, CPU=20-25%. BI closed and streaming web video CPU=45-50%. Heck, I opened BI with all web streaming (something I would not do previously) and it's hanging between 58-65% and all is fine.


The reason I started looking at the CPU issue is I want to add 2 more of the 3mp cam's. I believe with the direct to disk option, My machine can now support them. Thanks so much for the useful information!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom