Connect Cams Directly To PC?

[0kool]

Sorry if this has already been covered, been mashing the search button for about an hour now and still not sure:

If I have 8 720p ip cams, why wouldnt I just install a couple 4 port NIC cards in the PC and connect the cameras that way instead of using a switch?
Would that use a lot of CPU cycles? PC is running BI so it needs all the CPU it can get.

Thanks,
0k

 

[alastairstevenson]

I'm curious what the rationale for such an approach would be.
The network configuration on the PC would be an absolute nightmare to set up, document and maintain.
As would setting up the IP addresses in the cameras to match, and remembering which was which.
And you can only have one default gateway, so kinduv limits what the other 7 connections can do.
An 8 or 12 port switch would be a cheap and simple solution, and not load the PC at all, unlike managing 8 nics and their network stacks.

 

[CoreyX64]

4 port NICs are generally intended for high end servers with excessive IO requirements. Not to mention they are significantly more expensive than switches and that it makes for a very non-standard setup. Switches are much cheaper, standard protocol, and a lot easier to work with. It sounds to me you're trying to create a Blue Iris equivalent of every Hikvision NVR in existence. The cameras exist on an isolated subnet/NIC while the PC faces the Internet/main network on a different subnet. While you still can use two gigE NICs to accomplish this, I would definitely go with switches to a single port NIC. Cheaper and more standardized. I can't see how an NIC can be CPU taxing as all it's doing is transmitting data. Don't quote me on that though.

Basically it would go like this:
Main network > NIC1 > PC > NIC2 > switch > IPCs

If your whole concept is just to eliminate a network switch (one extra box), that's quite costly with no benefit. I think that's why you've been having trouble searching for such a thing as no one that I know of would ever attempt to do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm always Pro-consolidation. The less physical devices, the better. However sometimes integrating too much and too tight comes at a cost. This I feel is another example of that. A more common example would be cable modem/router combos. While it's great for space reasons, as wifi technology advances, you're still stuck with the same modem which is going obsolete quick. So as much as I don't like separate bridged modems with standard routers because it means extra wires etc, it's better to have 2 boxes because I can go and willfully pick a better quality router (I currently have a TP-Link AC router which is extremely reliable) and gain better performance.

Not really sure what you're shooting for so I hit a few points in hopes to answer your question. Still a little puzzled though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[0kool]

Thanks guys, consolidation is what I was thinking about. Its time to start cleaning up my network, its gotten pretty sloppy over the years (attached), and looking at all the 9 or 10$ 4-port NICs on ebay got me thinking. . .
Dont quite understand this:
Main network > NIC1 > PC > NIC2 > switch > IPCs
The NICs are on the PC, so how do you go from NIC to PC back to NIC again? **Wait, nevermind I got it.

The next question I was going to ask was what is the benefit of having the cams go to the pc and not through the router?
Have a look at my network (don't laugh, its the first time I ever made a diagram). All cams are going through the router.
You might notice that the DSL router has a different IP, cant remember why I did that, any idea?
Also thinking of letting the DSL router do the routing, and making the DD-WRT router act as only a wireless access point. The radio in the DSL router is not strong enough reach the bridge.

 

[CoreyX64]

what is the benefit of having the cams go to the pc and not through the router?

Isolation; for bandwidth reasons (save the router from relentless traffic) and security reasons. The more padding between the internet and the cameras, the better.

Have a look at my network (don't laugh, its the first time I ever made a diagram). All cams are going through the router.

A diagram is a diagram. Whatever you need to do to get the message across I will more than happily work with. I would also like to add that a bad diagram is better than just words. I'm a visual person so that's why. That's actually decent and I can understand it perfectly fine, good job.

If you didn't have the .16 PC going through the same switch that's fed from PowerLine, you could isolate all of your cameras on a separate NIC on the BlueIris box. However, running them through your main network is okay too. Hopefully all of your stuff is gigabit. (router and switch-wise).

You might notice that the DSL router has a different IP, cant remember why I did that, any idea?

The modem is bridged, so it's handing off a WAN address directly to the router, meaning it is operating passively. Chances are if you go to connect to 192.168.0.1, you won't get a response. It's been years since I've had DSL but I do remember that once bridged, reaching the modem itself was not as simple as dialing an IP, at least in my setup at the time. Secondly, even if it wasn't bridged, the routers WAN IP would be a LAN IP from the modem. So that absolutely must be on a different IP range from the router, else they'll conflict. As far as what box is doing the routing, it shouldn't make too much of a difference which box is doing it. I love DD-WRT and I think it does a great job at everything it's intended to do. Plus it's more feature rich, so on that note I'd let the DD-WRT handle the routing as well.

 

[0kool]

That's actually decent and I can understand it perfectly fine, good job.

Thanks! took me like an hour.

Thanks for all the info

0k

 

[nayr]

your router is not routing traffic across the same subnet, its just a dumb switch at that point.. its only routing traffic off your LAN and onto the internet, and vice versa.. besides, any router worth its salt now days can route Gigabit traffic without breaking a sweat.. gigabit internet is slowly becoming more common

this sounds incredibly silly
1. cheap network cards tend to hurt performance more than they help
2. your system bus speed is likely to be slower than could could get out of a switch
3. it will increase the load on your bi server
4. the point of a network is so things are connected to more than one device
5. your going to have to use crossover cables to hook 10/100 cards directly together
6. power over ethernet? nope

i could keep going on but I wont bother.. just going to point out that just because you can do something dont mean you should.. there is a good reason why nobody does this.