Security Camera Load on Network

[CWF182]

I'm likely overthinking this but here goes and thank you in advance for your help.

I want to install an 8 camera POE type system for my home. My house does not have an attic running over the entire house rather it has two separate attics at each end of the house. I will need about 4 cameras going into each attic. I was planning to install the NVR in one attic with a run to my LAN and then use a POE switch in the other attic so that I would only have to run one (instead of 4) ethernet cable to the NVR. Is there any disadvantage to this regarding the load placed on that one cable connecting the other four camera to the NVR?

 

[alastairstevenson]

Is there any disadvantage to this regarding the load placed on that one cable connecting the other four camera to the NVR?

Depending on the capabilities and settings for the (unspecified) cameras and also for the (unspecified) PoE switch -

An IP camera will typically generate a network stream of 5 - 10Mbps depending on specs and settings.
So 4 cameras will equate to around 40Mbps maximum.

A PoE switch uplink port will usually be capable of a gigabit connection with Cat5e or better cable, through which around 700 - 800Mbps could be passed.
So the 4 cameras would consume around 5% of the available bandwidth of the connection from the PoE switch.

 

[CWF182]

Also I'm concerned about the camera load on my overall network. Do most of the NVR's with built in POE switches put the connected cameras on their own subnet or are they on the same network as all my other devices.

 

[TonyR]

The biggest (perhaps not the only) caveat I see is placing an NVR and a POE switch in an attic where summer temps can be a hastened death to electronics and especially an NVR's hard drive.

 

[CWF182]

The biggest (perhaps not the only) caveat I see is placing an NVR and a POE switch in an attic where summer temps can be a hastened death to electronics and especially an NVR's hard drive.

Thanks Tony...I said attic for simplicity...I will actually run the cables through the wall and have the switch in a climate controlled room / closet. Any recommendations for a guy's first system like I describe? I think I'd be happy with 1080 resolution.

 

[CWF182]

Depending on the capabilities and settings for the (unspecified) cameras and also for the (unspecified) PoE switch -

An IP camera will typically generate a network stream of 5 - 10Mbps depending on specs and settings.
So 4 cameras will equate to around 40Mbps maximum.

A PoE switch uplink port will usually be capable of a gigabit connection with Cat5e or better cable, through which around 700 - 800Mbps could be passed.
So the 4 cameras would consume around 5% of the available bandwidth of the connection from the PoE switch.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[TonyR]

Any recommendations for a guy's first system like I describe?

Negative, I'm a Blue Iris VMS on a PC type of guy, perhaps someone more versed in NVR's can chime in... @mat200 , you awake?

 

[alastairstevenson]

I think I'd be happy with 1080 resolution.

Depending on what you aim to achieve, and what the needed coverage is - you might want to set your sights a lot higher.

 

[CWF182]

Thanks Alastairstevenson, if not too much trouble what would you recommend. I'm simply wanting to replace some crappy Arlo (720p wifi) cameras with something that has a bit better resolution and something where I can continuously monitor the camera on a display (driveway and entrance doors). I thought briefly about setting up a PC with Blue Iris but I just want something simple and not have another server to maintain.

 

[bigredfish]

Shouldnt effect your home network. Cameras run directly to NVR and/or switch which goes to NVR. Only effect on home lan would be when you’re streaming live to a pc on the network... at least that’s how mine works.

 

[CWF182]

Shouldnt effect your home network. Cameras run directly to NVR and/or switch which goes to NVR. Only effect on home lan would be when you’re streaming live to a pc on the network... at least that’s how mine works.

Thanks!

 

[IReallyLikePizza2]

I would put a switch at each end, and run 10G over Cat6a or Singlemode OS2 fiber, or Multimode OM3 fiber. Then you can do literally whatever you want with zero concern

I personally would be concerned over the performance impact

Getting a switch with 10G-BASET RJ45 is getting cheaper, but not nearly as cheap as switches with SFP+ ports, especially used ones. Then you can just get Transceivers for whatever fiber you want

• Cat6 distance limit 180ft
• cat6a limit 330ft
• OM3 Fiber limit 1000ft
• OS2 Fiber limit from 10 kilomiters to 100+ Kilomiters

I'd go OS2 for longevity reasons

 

[CWF182]

I would put a switch at each end, and run 10G over Cat6a or Singlemode OS2 fiber, or Multimode OM3 fiber. Then you can do literally whatever you want with zero concern

I personally would be concerned over the performance impact

Getting a switch with 10G-BASET RJ45 is getting cheaper, but not nearly as cheap as switches with SFP+ ports, especially used ones. Then you can just get Transceivers for whatever fiber you want

• Cat6 distance limit 180ft
• cat6a limit 330ft
• OM3 Fiber limit 1000ft
• OS2 Fiber limit from 10 kilomiters to 100+ Kilomiters

I'd go OS2 for longevity reasons

Thanks again. If I buy a NVR with the poe switch built-in that would be the same as you suggest "putting a switch at each end" , wouldn't it? on one end of my install it is no problem at all to run the 4 cables from the cameras directly to the NVR.

If the only advantage of using another external switch before the NVR is to run one cable that is not a consideration. If there is some other advantage please let me know. And thank you again for your help.

BTW for general exterior home cameras is 1080p good enough or would you go higher in resolution?

 

[alastairstevenson]

With respect - with 4 cameras consuming around 5% of a gigabit connection, suggesting the installation of a 10G link and fibre to take that traffic is a bizarre suggestion.

 

[IReallyLikePizza2]

With respect - with 4 cameras consuming around 5% of a gigabit connection, suggesting the installation of a 10G link and fibre to take that traffic is a bizarre suggestion.

I'm looking ahead. Who here installs 4 cameras and calls it a day? I'd bet there is a chance it could turn into 12 cameras. Then think of resolution, right now 1080p cams are common, but 4K cams are becoming more and more popular. What about in 10 years time? For all we know, he could have 12 x 8K Security cams all with audio, how much network will that use? Then he might decide to start uploading all this to the internet, thats another 5% gone

I don't want to re-wire my house every 10 years

Especially since the cost of running the cable is essentially the same, even if he runs fiber across and uses it for 1G right now, the future bandwidth upgrade is now virtually unlimited

The other thing is that if he gets gigabit internet, he just lost 5% of his internet speed to cameras, or worse, with no QoS, he might impact his camera streams by downloading a file. Thats no good

 

[sebastiantombs]

10GB is way overkill. 1GBis plenty, and then some, in the real world for more then 10, 20 or more cameras. Given that the cameras should be on their own subnet and switch, impact on the main, in house, LAN is zero. Camera traffic should never go through the ISP router, unless as an aggregated view for viewing, because the bandwidth of those routers is terrible even if it's a GB internet rated router.

 

[IReallyLikePizza2]

10GB is way overkill. 1GBis plenty, and then some, in the real world for more then 10, 20 or more cameras. Given that the cameras should be on their own subnet and switch, impact on the main, in house, LAN is zero.

If they are on their own subnet or not makes zero difference to bandwidth utilization over the physical link

Hell, I even ran 10G to my garage, and I'm glad I did. I often see the link at over 1G utilization - Garage Network Rack with 10G Fiber

 

[sebastiantombs]

The physical link will handle a gig. I have 15 cameras running on a separate PoE switch. The network load is sitting under 100 MbPS with around a 100 MPs load. The cameras are a mix of 2MP and 4MP and all run substreams.

 

[IReallyLikePizza2]

I'm not saying it wont work with a gigabit connection, but it seems like you'd be shooting yourself in the foot not going 10G. Since you have a separate switch for that, it could be sitting at 900Mb/s and you would probably have no issues

But since he's connecting the two parts of his house, I'd bet eventually he will have more devices using that link too

a 100ft run of fiber is $12, and 500 feet is less than $50. Seems like a no brainer to me

 

[sebastiantombs]

You're leaving out SPF adapters or cards of some sort or a switch with SPF built in, all additional costs. Running a second cable to connect the two points is a best practice to begin with, even with fiber, and, being a Clark Griswold type, I'd run four at once and be done with it. Future proof and a half. Trying to install for technology that isn't available is overkill. It took a long time to go past a megabit, then a long time to get to 10 megabits and the same with 100 megabits. Gig is nice and will handle more than enough for camera traffic for, probably, at least 20 or 30 years.