HikVision NAS connection (plus performance alternatives)

[thorn2fish]

Yes, I've read the sticky and just about every post on this subject, but would like a current rollup. If it is yields something new, we can add it to the sticky. If not, it won't add clutter.
QNAP TS-231+ Firmware4.1.4 with single 3TB WD Red drive
HikVision DS-2CD2332-IFirmware V5.3.0 build 150513
(2) Hikvision DS-2CD2332-I Firmware V5.2.0 build 140721

Knowing that for NAS storage to work with HikVision cameras, I created three shares, one for each camera. Since I am using a QNAP NAS, I created three userid’s with quota’s which by my understanding would limit the space utilization to provide circular recording.

I tried this both using NFS and SMB/CIFS. Here is my experience with each.
NFS – HikVision won’t let me enter (either firmware level) a Username/Password, so the quota cannot be applied.
SMB/CIFS – The share can be established (using Username/Password), but HikVision still doesn’t honor the NAS quota for the user.

I’ve seen the hex edit and other circumventions, but would expect that if HikVision wants to advertise that it has the capability to write directly to a NAS, it should work within the functionality of the product (and beyond one camera). I am not (nor do I desire to be) a Linux or Windows super user. I understand that HikVision is also pushing this back as a problem with the NAS manufacturers. They can, however at some point the price to feature ratio that makes them attractive will tilt towards another camera manufacturer.

The reason NAS is attractive to me is that being a performance specialist (in another IT field), there isn’t any reason to continuously stream video from all cameras to a NVR/VMS consuming network bandwidth and NVR processor cycles 24 hours a day (for those of us who hopefully only need to record few events).

There is another alternative. I was able to get close to using a VMS solution that relied on the camera event detection using Xprotect (Milestone Systems). It (and others potentially) can be set up to detect the camera’s stream start and stop initiated by the camera’s event detection. Of course nothing is without its issues. I am not an expert on all the camera video streams, but for whatever reason when using this approach, it did not honor the pre-event buffered video. I don’t know if the camera was not sending the buffered stream or Xprotect switched over to a live streaming.

I tried to talk to both my HikVision authorized retailer (and their expert) and a couple of VMS suppliers and came away with sense that they either didn’t see a problem or were ambivalent to the cost factor of continuous streaming.

Ok, where did I go wrong with my NAS implementation?
Will HikVision ever add functionality to provide the limit itself?
Does the issueof the resource impact of full time streaming have value to some segment of this industry?

 

[alastairstevenson]

NFS – HikVision won’t let me enter (either firmware level) a Username/Password, so the quota cannot be applied.

So you should control access via the host ID (IP address) for NFS, example below for a shared folder:

SMB/CIFS – The share can be established (using Username/Password), but HikVision still doesn’t honor the NAS quota for the user.

When I tested the quota for CIFS/SMB access it worked OK.
But I've not used that method for a while as the QNAP NAs has the 'LVM - Logical Volume Manager' facility to create volumes of arbitrary size, either hard allocated or dynamically allocated, sized to match the restrictions of the various firmware versions. It has been posted here somewhere that the 5.3.x firmware has removed the 200GB or so boundary of the previous versions.
And this way, you can set per-user access restrictions.

The reason NAS is attractive to me is that being a performance specialist (in another IT field), there isn’t any reason to continuously stream video from all cameras to a NVR/VMS consuming network bandwidth and NVR processor cycles 24 hours a day (for those of us who hopefully only need to record few events).

With respect, I'm not sure I agree with those statements.
Why shouldn't you stream video continuously? network bandwidth (talking LAN not WAN) isn't a finite or chargeable resource, it makes no different whether you use it or not.
NVR processors cycles are there to be used, and are low-cost. NVRs (and cameras) typically use low-power processors matched to the task, so overall power consumption is quite low, say 10-15w for a 16ch NVR, plus 5-10w for a couple of discs. Much lower than a general-purpose PC running a heavy software application.
On simple motion detection - it doesn't obviate the need to continuously stream video, not if you want any sort of pre-event video. Which you generally do, especially as it takes a few seconds to negotiate and initiate a video stream.

 

[thorn2fish]

alastairstevenson, Thank you for the reply!

As far as the NFS approach, Yes, I added the IP address of the camera and the camera still sees the whole drive (the full usable of 3TB).

The good thing is that you got me thinking. I saw posts talking about using logical volumes. When I would go to Volumes under Storage Manager and tried to add a logical volume, there were no disks available to be selected so I couldn't go any further. I had seen examples of others doing this with a raid (multiple disks) setup, so I thought maybe it just wasn't possible with a single disk (some kind of limitation).

Anyway, on a whim, I deleted the existing volume thinking maybe QNAP default one a single simple volume and maybe by starting over I could define multiples. Yep, that was it. From there, I allocated several new volumes (using Multiple Thick), added a share to each new volume and was able to successfully allocate one each to the cameras.

I should have recognized that default QNAP setup just allocated one simple volume with the full available disk size.

Everything is up and recording now. If the wrap-around on the history works (which it should), I am rolling. I allocated 500GB to each. The format completed for the 5.2.0 cameras even at 500GB, but we'll see if they stay working.. If not, I know what to do.

Thanks again for giving me enough of a different angle to get it solved!

I also would still like to know if others have any interest in the performance issue.

 

[alastairstevenson]

Anyway, on a whim, I deleted the existing volume

Brilliant! Well done indeed. I think you will really appreciate going forward the flexibility that the LVM method of volume management provides on the QNAP NAS.
And it will be interesting to know how the boundaries of what the cameras handle for external storage varies with the firmware version.
For a low-cost camera, the 'mini-NVR' capabilities of the camera storage capabilities is pretty impressive, in my view.

 

[thorn2fish]

Double success! We caught one of the guys that has been breaking into vehicles in our neighborhood on video! They broke in about a week ago while my other NVR was down due to a bad drive. It was good to have it back up, but I never expected they would return to the same vehicle a week later.
I should give you double Thanks!

 

[alastairstevenson]

Nice one! That must give you a great sense of satisfaction that the system you created for a purpose has fulfilled that purpose.

 

[alextottle]

From there, I allocated several new volumes (using Multiple Thick), added a share to each new volume and was able to successfully allocate one each to the cameras.

It looks as if you have solved exactly the problem that's been bothering me with my QNAP/Hikvision system but I have a question.

I managed to get everything working using SMB/CIFS and each camera set up as a user with a quota. However, that caused serious performance issues, with the recorded video missing a blocks of several seconds. So I'm back to NFS, which does not seem to have the performance issue. However, I cannot see any way to define multiple new logical volumes, each with an appropriate proportion of the single disk that I use to record from the cameras.

It may be that the TS-212P NAS I'm using is not up to the task - but I have others that I could use, so I would be most grateful if you could say a bit more on how you set up multiple logical volumes on the same disk.

 

[alastairstevenson]

Unfortunately, the TS-212 does not have the LVM logical volume manager facility of the higher spec QNAP NAS boxes, so you can't provision shares of arbitrary size.
There was a potential alternative approach which consisted of creating a large empty file, formatting it as EXT2 and mounting it and offering it as share.