Ultimate Blue Iris PC <$2500

[ret60sp]

You have ZERO clue..note that i said i7-4770 not 7700...regadless
the i7-7700 under full load would be about 80w...I have tested the this..you are making stupid assumptions and calculations when this can all be verified with a killawatt type meter.
its clear that you LIED about your power usage...you never tested it, you guessed based on a SINGLE cpu tdp??????? Damn you are thick...
I am not using 100w...no guesses here...buy a killawatt meter...you will find that an i7-6700 system at 20 percent is drawing about 30w or so...

A killawatt meter and a field clamp meter both measure power consumption. Engineers use clamp meters and simple homeowners like you use plugin devices like the killawatt meter. I grow tired of trying to be nice to you when you are determined to be an asshole.

 

[fenderman]

A killawatt meter and a field clamp meter both measure power consumption. Engineers use clamp meters and simple homeowners like you use plugin devices like the killawatt meter. I grow tired of trying to be nice to you when you are determined to be an asshole.

you have proven that you cannot properly use a clamp meter....you stated earlier that your system draws "9 amps" then you changed it to one..therefore, I urge you do use a killawatt meter as it is obvious you dont know what you are doing...your posts are full of newbie mistakes and inaccuracies, you are out of your league here..please stop wasting your money...

 

[ret60sp]

You can tell ken that I said that your $2500 build is DUMB and that NO ONE should ever consider it. Its really sooo bad that I thought this was a joke! I am helping others by pointing out how silly this is. See my post above explaining that you lied about power consumption numbers on your system. You dont know how to measure power consumption, thats for certain...one day its 9 amps the next day its one amp...buy a killawatt meter its stupid proof and should work even for you. You should NOT be running anything else on a VMS system..it should be dedicated.

Consumers are trying to consolidate things, not keep dedicated devices performing single tasks. Consider your cell phone, for instance. Is it simply a cell phone or are you so archaic that you would "help others" see your logic that they should "NOT be running anything else on a VMS system...." because some butthead with a windup watch wants them to believe that consolidating the power of their computer and using it for multiple purposes is a bad idea? Some people, like me, want to be able to manage their home security system from the same PC they use to manage their home office, check their email, or deal with assholes like you. Very few consumers are truly interested in keeping anything isolated on its own system. This may sound like a great idea from the standpoint of keeping the VMS system from intruders online, but most people want to be able to have internet access to their system from outside the home, and making it available online is the most practical solution. A stand-alone VMS system that has a port open through the router firewall can and will be hacked, when that happens wouldn't you rather be using that machine for some other purpose when the port monitoring software alarms that the port is being accessed remotely? You can't really have that immediate access unless you are using the same machine. So your logic is tampered with a second opinion, and just because you are a staff member of a website that hosts opinions on IP Camera setups and options does not make you a universal spokesperson and a focus group for all time with respects to what consumers would prefer. I can tell you that consumers prefer to be able to access their home security system through their smart phone, and the home security system not be "monitored" by a third party OCONUS.

I didn't lie to you. You asked how much power my system uses and I answered the question thoroughly. My system uses about the same amount of power as your dedicated system does, but mine is used for many more things than just a VMS system. This is my option, and many consumers like me exist. You may not like it, or agree with it, but people prefer automation consolidation over separation - remember that cell phone again, the smart phone you probably have. People want more of the same. My system is the quintessential anthropomorphic equivalent of a hybrid SUV, it can get great gas mileage, still be fun to operate, has almost endless flexibility and can tow any boat that comes on a trailer. I'm sorry that you cannot see the utility in such a system and that you are so narrow minded that all you can call it is DUMB.

 

[ret60sp]

you have proven that you cannot properly use a clamp meter....you stated earlier that your system draws "9 amps" then you changed it to one..therefore, I urge you do use a killawatt meter as it is obvious you dont know what you are doing...your posts are full of newbie mistakes and inaccuracies, you are out of your league here..please stop wasting your money...

Jackass - It draws 9 amps at a FULL CPU LOAD. A FULL CPU LOAD at 9 amps is all 24 cores running at 100%. Blue Iris, with all 11 cameras, only hits ONE ( one of 24) of my two CPU's (24 cores) and therefore it only uses 1 amp.

 

[fenderman]

Jackass - It draws 9 amps at a FULL CPU LOAD. A FULL CPU LOAD at 9 amps is all 24 cores running at 100%. Blue Iris, with all 11 cameras, only hits ONE ( one of 24) of my two CPU's (24 cores) and therefore it only uses 1 amp.

It's drawing more you just don't know what you're doing

 

[fenderman]

Consumers are trying to consolidate things, not keep dedicated devices performing single tasks. Consider your cell phone, for instance. Is it simply a cell phone or are you so archaic that you would "help others" see your logic that they should "NOT be running anything else on a VMS system...." because some butthead with a windup watch wants them to believe that consolidating the power of their computer and using it for multiple purposes is a bad idea? Some people, like me, want to be able to manage their home security system from the same PC they use to manage their home office, check their email, or deal with assholes like you. Very few consumers are truly interested in keeping anything isolated on its own system. This may sound like a great idea from the standpoint of keeping the VMS system from intruders online, but most people want to be able to have internet access to their system from outside the home, and making it available online is the most practical solution. A stand-alone VMS system that has a port open through the router firewall can and will be hacked, when that happens wouldn't you rather be using that machine for some other purpose when the port monitoring software alarms that the port is being accessed remotely? You can't really have that immediate access unless you are using the same machine. So your logic is tampered with a second opinion, and just because you are a staff member of a website that hosts opinions on IP Camera setups and options does not make you a universal spokesperson and a focus group for all time with respects to what consumers would prefer. I can tell you that consumers prefer to be able to access their home security system through their smart phone, and the home security system not be "monitored" by a third party OCONUS.

I didn't lie to you. You asked how much power my system uses and I answered the question thoroughly. My system uses about the same amount of power as your dedicated system does, but mine is used for many more things than just a VMS system. This is my option, and many consumers like me exist. You may not like it, or agree with it, but people prefer automation consolidation over separation - remember that cell phone again, the smart phone you probably have. People want more of the same. My system is the quintessential anthropomorphic equivalent of a hybrid SUV, it can get great gas mileage, still be fun to operate, has almost endless flexibility and can tow any boat that comes on a trailer. I'm sorry that you cannot see the utility in such a system and that you are so narrow minded that all you can call it is DUMB.

I don't care what you or consumers are interested in, its a terrible idea to run other software along side critical vms. You prove your incompetence when suggesting port forwarding...use VPN!!!!!
I am not a staff member, I own this site. Dont like it, leave.

 

[ret60sp]

I offer the two attached files to make my point here.

Screenshot #1 is 100% CPU load - all 24 cores operating at their maximum about 400 watts or 3.5 amps (not a condition caused by Blue Iris - but other applications running secondary that use up the remaining CPU availability) This condition does not involve the additional load of maxing out the GPU's.

Screenshot #2 is the OS and Blue Iris running alone, 150 watts or 1.3 amps (a condition caused by Blue Iris running alone). This number drops to 1 amp if I were to let the whole system cool down and take a screenshot after the PWM fans slow down. But if I take the screenshot immediately after turning off all of the engineering apps I have running in the background, we see 150 watts and 1.3 amps draw.

This program is derived from the built-in (killawatt type) logic that is offered on the HX series Corsair PSU's. Something again that consumers like me would prefer having to the plugin killawatt meter that has to be plugged in and unplugged - shutting down the system and restarting it to get a measure. Having it built-in is better. But No, the guy with the wind-up watch and a rotary dial phone would prefer that these devices be separated and not integrated. Timekeeping, power monitoring and efficiency - needs to be kept in a separate device sayeth mister know-it-all "staff member"?

 

[ret60sp]

I don't care what you or consumers are interested in, its a terrible idea to run other software along side critical vms. You prove your incompetence when suggesting port forwarding...use VPN!!!!!
I am not a staff member, I own this site. Dont like it, leave.

That is precisely what I will do. I have shared your attitude with Ken at Blue Iris and he informs me that " Thanks Don ... this is not the first time I have heard this, but it sounds worse now ... I will have to investigate whether this forum is doing more harm than good I suppose.

Take care

Ken

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Don Francis <ret60sp@windstream.net> wrote:

Ken,

You might reconsider making recommendations for folks like me to post things like this on the IPCAMTALK website ( Ultimate Blue Iris PC <$2500 ). There is a COMPLETE ASSHOLE moderator on the website that was not helpful at all.

I appreciate the recommendation, but I think we are far better off coming to you than to solicit the opinion of some jackass moderator with incredulous anonymity.

Thanks!


Don Francis

 

[ret60sp]

I don't care what you or consumers are interested in, its a terrible idea to run other software along side critical vms. You prove your incompetence when suggesting port forwarding...use VPN!!!!!
I am not a staff member, I own this site. Dont like it, leave.

I made no mention of port forwarding. Having a port open through (various) firewall(s) is precisely what your VPN (and everything accessing the internet) has to have. Your VPN still opens a port.

 

[fenderman]

That is precisely what I will do. I have shared your attitude with Ken at Blue Iris and he informs me that " Thanks Don ... this is not the first time I have heard this, but it sounds worse now ... I will have to investigate whether this forum is doing more harm than good I suppose.

Take care

Ken

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Don Francis <ret60sp@windstream.net> wrote:

Ken,

You might reconsider making recommendations for folks like me to post things like this on the IPCAMTALK website ( Ultimate Blue Iris PC <$2500 ). There is a COMPLETE ASSHOLE moderator on the website that was not helpful at all.

I appreciate the recommendation, but I think we are far better off coming to you than to solicit the opinion of some jackass moderator with incredulous anonymity.

Thanks!


Don Francis

Do you think I give a crap what ken thinks? He should be thankful that this forum supports his product for free! He is welcome to field the tech support on his own....I owe him and blue iris nothing. He does not control this forum or me. There is nothing he can do. I find his suggestion that he has to "investigate" or can do anything about me offensive. It implies that he has some sort of control over this forum. He does not. He is more than welcome to remove the link to this website from his. I dont need it. That is not how users find us. He is the beneficiary of this forum not vice versa. I dont care what you think either...I will NEVER allow anyone to post information like yours that is misleading on this forum...only a complete idiot would recommend a 2500 dollar power-hog system for your load...
This forum will ALWAYS be about providing accurate and truthful information. Your post is simply asinine in EVERY way.
You are not the first douche bag to try run and cry to ken and think i give a crap. I could give a rat's ass. This forum is NOT a blue iris forum. Its an independently owned and operated ip camera forum...Please send Ken a direct link to this post.

 

[fenderman]

I offer the two attached files to make my point here.

Screenshot #1 is 100% CPU load - all 24 cores operating at their maximum about 400 watts or 3.5 amps (not a condition caused by Blue Iris - but other applications running secondary that use up the remaining CPU availability) This condition does not involve the additional load of maxing out the GPU's.

Screenshot #2 is the OS and Blue Iris running alone, 150 watts or 1.3 amps (a condition caused by Blue Iris running alone). This number drops to 1 amp if I were to let the whole system cool down and take a screenshot after the PWM fans slow down. But if I take the screenshot immediately after turning off all of the engineering apps I have running in the background, we see 150 watts and 1.3 amps draw.

This program is derived from the built-in (killawatt type) logic that is offered on the HX series Corsair PSU's. Something again that consumers like me would prefer having to the plugin killawatt meter that has to be plugged in and unplugged - shutting down the system and restarting it to get a measure. Having it built-in is better. But No, the guy with the wind-up watch and a rotary dial phone would prefer that these devices be separated and not integrated. Timekeeping, power monitoring and efficiency - needs to be kept in a separate device sayeth mister know-it-all "staff member"?

ok so now you post a truthful info that your powerhog heater is consuming 150w vs about 30-35 that an i7-7700 would consume under similar load. Glad you can admit the truth. God you dont have a clue about servers or VMS...sad...

 

[fenderman]

I made no mention of port forwarding. Having a port open through (various) firewall(s) is precisely what your VPN (and everything accessing the internet) has to have. Your VPN still opens a port.

You dont understand vpn, pray tell how a vpn "can and will be hacked" as you stated...

 

[aristobrat]

Previously, I was running a single Intel Xeon E3-1225 V3 (1150 series) four core system and the CPU load stayed pegged at 97% with 11 HD cameras feeding to it. If more than 2 cameras needed to record, the CPU would hit 100%

I'm learning BI, so your previous system performance is of some interest to me.

The way I understand it, if the "direct-to-disc" feature was enabled on each camera, there really isn't much for the CPU to do while recording. As the computer receives video from the cameras, it writes it "direct-to-disc" .. no real compute happens. On the other hand, if you didn't have "direct-to-disc" enabled on some (or all) of the cameras, as the cameras send the video to the computer, the computer has to transcode each camera stream from whatever format the camera sends to whatever format Blue Iris defaults to for transcoding, them write the video to disc. This adds significant load to the processor. This is what jumped to mind when you said your previous system couldn't record more than two cameras at a time...

Also, Blue Iris makes use of the Quick Sync feature on certain Intel processors to hardware accelerate H.264 video. A lot of Xeons do not support Quick Sync. So whenever the Blue Iris client is open and displaying video, not having Quick Sync means that the processor itself has to do all of the work. This also adds can add a significant load to the processor.

The max CPU load in the daytime, full color with 7 cameras monitoring and 4 cameras recording at the same time is 13% (previously unable to record 4)

Interesting. I've got an old system (2012) running an i7-3770. I've got 7 cameras recording (15 MP at 20 FPS) with a total system CPU usage between 10-15% total. That's with direct-to-disc enabled on all cameras, and Blue Iris using hardware acceleration enabled for H.264.

If I get a chance in the next few days, I'll clone four of my cameras in BI. That will bring the total cameras up to 11, with 7 recording and 4 monitoring. Curious to see the impact on the CPU.

PS – I’m now looking for a local expert on Blue Iris software that I can hire to come over here and tweak this software to take advantage of this system’s potential.

If you haven't seen this already, it's a great resource for tuning BI:
Optimizing Blue Iris's CPU Usage | IP Cam Talk

 

[fenderman]

I'm learning BI, so your previous system performance is of some interest to me.

The way I understand it, if the "direct-to-disc" feature was enabled on each camera, there really isn't much for the CPU to do while recording. As the computer receives video from the cameras, it writes it "direct-to-disc" .. no real compute happens. On the other hand, if you didn't have "direct-to-disc" enabled on some (or all) of the cameras, as the cameras send the video to the computer, the computer has to transcode each camera stream from whatever format the camera sends to whatever format Blue Iris defaults to for transcoding, them write the video to disc. This adds significant load to the processor. This is what jumped to mind when you said your previous system couldn't record more than two cameras at a time...

Also, Blue Iris makes use of the Quick Sync feature on certain Intel processors to hardware accelerate H.264 video. A lot of Xeons do not support Quick Sync. So whenever the Blue Iris client is open and displaying video, not having Quick Sync means that the processor itself has to do all of the work. This also adds can add a significant load to the processor.



Interesting. I've got an old system (2012) running an i7-3770. I've got 7 cameras recording (15 MP at 20 FPS) with a total system CPU usage between 10-15% total. That's with direct-to-disc enabled on all cameras, and Blue Iris using hardware acceleration enabled for H.264.

If I get a chance in the next few days, I'll clone four of my cameras in BI. That will bring the total cameras up to 11, with 7 recording and 4 monitoring. Curious to see the impact on the CPU.


If you haven't seen this already, it's a great resource for tuning BI:
Optimizing Blue Iris's CPU Usage | IP Cam Talk

cloning does not impact cpu in any significant way...
even when using direct to disk there is obviously a large load generated using blue iris vs other lighter vms. Its manageable though...the OP simply is incompetent, lazy or a combination of the two.

 

[aristobrat]

cloning does not impact cpu in any significant way...

Hmm, OK. I was thinking that since BI shows a FPS for the cloned camera that it would be equivalent to the load a physical camera not recording. Thanks!

 

[ThomasPI]

Fenderman, you can't fix Stuck On Stupid but you tried to educate the lad.