Wireles Slow With Multiple Cameras

ruppmeister said:
@TechBill - It might be helpful for OP if you elaborate some on your setup here. When you say you use two access points for your network, are you #1) using the same SSID for both wireless networks and #2) are they setup on different wireless channels as the OP is doing?
Click to expand...


Different SSID or otherwise the camera will hop to the second access points if it think it have a better connection with it. I am using auto channel so both Access point will find the best channel to use .

Bill
 
  • Like
Reactions: MtnXfreeride
I did two things which seemed to have beefed up the speed. I moved the linksys router from "Auto" to 20mhz (Linksys doesnt support 40mhz only). I changed the linksys over to channel 6 and the accesspoint to channel 1. Every few minutes I saw something popup on channel 11 that was high on the db meter. I also disabled the guest networks if that matters.

I went ahead and plugged all 7 cameras back in and speedtest on the 2.4ghz network was 24 down 5 up which is close to what the 5.0ghz shows (31/5.5). I will do more official testing tomorrow if things stay calm over night. It hasnt been long, but this is the longest the AP has gone without needing a restart.

Thanks for all the help thus far, I know this reaches beyond "IP camera" talk.

Also to address comments above:
SSID is different between AP and router.

I have only a chromecast/galaxy S4/wireless printer on the linksys 2.4ghz network.
I have 7 cameras on the TP-Link AP (4@480p 15 fps, 3@720p 15FPS)
On the 5.0ghz network I have 2 tablets, a galaxy S5, 2 desktops, 1 laptop.
Wired I have my home server, magic jack plus, MyQ garage link, Acu-Rite Weather station internet hub.

I dont think I have too many devices on 2.4ghz land since they are broken up and 6 channels apart.

My setup seems similar to TechBill, however I am not wanting to sacrifice much on the 720p cameras for quality.. I would be pissed if there was a break in and the reason I couldnt read a plate or get a good face pic was because I cheaped out on the settings.
 
I believe the issue is that the access point you are using is customer grade level so the chipset in it may not be able to handle continuous streaming from all 7 cameras at the same time. That maybe why it locking it. The way wifi works that it communicate one device at a time but cycles between each devices at a very high rate of speed that it seem it communicating all the devices at the same time. (I am assuming that you're streaming all 7 because you said you use the Blue Iris correct me if I am wrong)

It would works fine if 7 laptops is connected to the access point and all 7 users are only doing web surfing since connection is brief and not continuous however if all 7 users were to watch Youtube or Netflex at same time then It would probably start to lag and even crash the access point.

I do not continuously stream all my cameras, it only stream when a motion is detect to write to the NAS drive however I would check the front or back door on my Amazon Firestick with cam viewer apps but I am only streaming one or two cameras at same time which still give me leg room on my wifi.

With 7 cameras streaming continuously at the same time, you probably would need to go with industrial grade access point or at least 2 more customer grade access point and limit to only 2 or 3 camera per access point.

I plan to get rid of wireless soon and go hardwired myself. I went with wireless at the beginning because I was renting a house and I couldn't go drilling holes in it to install the cameras.

Bill
 
Well the TPLink lasted about 1.5 hours before going down the rest of the night. My linksys router can handle all the cameras on it at once... plus all my other devices so I figured this thing could handle just the cameras. Ill try it again today with just 2 cameras running.. a 720p and a 480p and see how it goes. I just dont understand how using thepowerline adapters before was able to slow down my 2.4band.. there has to be interference somehow in my setup.

The TPLink AP SSID shows still when it goes down and I can connect to it via my laptop however windows says it takes longer than usual. Once it does say connected it wont load a webpage or let me access the AP backend.
 
If the TP Link is not up to the task for the cams, maybe you could switch the devices around between the two routers making the cams go to the linksys and the other devices connect to the TP Link?

I hope this all works out for you in the end.
 
That guy on reddit has it worse. Only 3 cams and worse problems.

The problem, as always, is that wireless usually falls way short of advertised specs.

Take for example my home WiFi, which I consider to be quite good considering it is just 802.11n on 2.4ghz. I use two Ubiquiti UniFi APs that use zero-handoff technology so my devices will switch seamlessly between APs under one SSID. This works because I do not run any cameras on WiFi. No continuous loads of any kind. Just phones and tablets. App updates, occasional web browsing, netflix around bedtime. Just the things that can't be done with a wired connection. Even my laptop uses a wired connection. So my WiFi is quiet almost all the time and it works when I need it to.

Even so, the speed is poor. If I do a speed test with my galaxy tab s (modern high end samsung tablet) I only get a shakey 25 Mbps down and about 17 Mbps up. Now if I switch over to a desktop machine that is wired, it will steadily max out the connection at just over 50 Mbps down and just under 20 Mbps up. Here you can see the two tests being performed on my router's bandwidth graph.



The little spikes are just a youtube video buffering on another machine, not wirelessly. FYI, the tablet during the test is 5 feet away from the AP, through one very thin wall of drywall.
 
Yes the reddit guy does sound similar... crap..

So.. I found a half solution for now.. I bought a Ubiquity Long Range Accesspoint which is the ONLY router/ap to ever not lose connection for 24 hrs... (too soon to tell any longer so far).

But even though the AP and Router are on different 2.4ghz channels with different SSIDs, with the cameras on the AP, my routers 2.4ghz is still slow while wired/5.0ghz are fast...


5.0ghz transfer in network:
attachment.php


2.4ghz in network transfer speed:
attachment.php



So.. at least the 2.4ghz network is stable now.. but why is my routers 2.4ghz band slow!?!?! ahhh this is killing me.
 

Attachments

  • before.png
    before.png
    577.2 KB · Views: 64
  • after.png
    after.png
    577.6 KB · Views: 64
Probably just unavoidable interference. I probably should have recommended a UniFi AP from the start, since I use the standard model at home and they work okay (not stellar, but mostly reliable at least) for me.

The best I can recommend is to limit both the Ubiquiti AP and the router to 20 MHz channel width if possible. Maybe even lower. A 10 MHz channel width might be slower in theory but faster in practice if it means avoiding interference. And of course it is still important to manually assign the channel on the AP and the router so that neither network can accidentally step on the other. You can't really control what channels your neighbors are going to use, but you can reduce the chance of future problems cropping up by reducing some of the variables (like automatic channel selection).

Remember you have channels 1, 6, and 11 to choose from as long as you are using 20 MHz channel width. Any one of them could have interference that you couldn't find without an actual hardware-based spectrum analyzer. Something like http://www.microcom.us/airview2.html would probably work, though any of Ubiquiti's AirMax radios has the same thing built in, just not in a USB stick form factor. Unfortunately they left this capability out of the UniFi line.
 
Last edited:
Are you running any Bluetooth devices? If so, have you tried turning them off and testing ? Bluetooth: 2.4 - 2.85GHz. Wifi: 2.401 - 2.473Ghz.

At my house, I have a pretty robust network. I have excellent coverage with two RT-N66U routers on opposite ends of the house. Even with ideal signal strength, certain Bluetooth devices can bring my 2.4GHz network to a crawl.

Also, there is mixed information online about the effect of 802.11g devices running side-by-side with 802.11n devices. Some say it is no problem, others say it will slow the network to 802.11g speeds. Something to consider and investigate.

Good luck.
 
MtnXfreeride said:
Yes the reddit guy does sound similar... crap..

So.. I found a half solution for now.. I bought a Ubiquity Long Range Accesspoint which is the ONLY router/ap to ever not lose connection for 24 hrs... (too soon to tell any longer so far).

But even though the AP and Router are on different 2.4ghz channels with different SSIDs, with the cameras on the AP, my routers 2.4ghz is still slow while wired/5.0ghz are fast...


5.0ghz transfer in network:
attachment.php


2.4ghz in network transfer speed:
attachment.php



So.. at least the 2.4ghz network is stable now.. but why is my routers 2.4ghz band slow!?!?! ahhh this is killing me.
Click to expand...
I said as much in post 17. I think you're trying to build a house out of sand. It may hold for a while, but it's just not the right building material.

Many of us have been down this road: We start out thinking wifi is the way to do cameras because running cat5/6 is a pain. But we struggle, and it's not our fault. And it's not yours, either. It's just the nature of consumer wifi. It sucks. My router does 5 ghz and 2.4. The 5 ghz screams, legitimate 100mbps+ copying a file from a wired desktop on the network, but the 2.4 doesn't, even though it is n and even when my laptop is right next to it: I can't pull more than 30-40 mbps.

The numbers you see advertised for wifi are simply lies. The condition required to get them in real life is so absurd as to be implausible.

As bp2008 says, as I have experienced myself, as the hardware IT guy at my company says, and as others do, the best way to have a home network is to wire up everything you can. It's sad that in 2015 that is still the reality, but it is. wifi is for tablets, phones, even netflix devices, but for things you want running all the time that suck up a lot of bandwidth it isn't the right way to go.

Can you not bite the bullet and run cable?
 
LittleBrother said:
As bp2008 says, as I have experienced myself, as the hardware IT guy at my company says, and as others do, the best way to have a home network is to wire up everything you can.
Click to expand...

So true! I'm the IT guy at our company, and that's what I always say. If you can plug it in, do it! wifi is for phones, tablets, and convenience.
At home I've gone to extreme lengths to be able to plug in everything, especially cameras. I have one that's still wireless, and (big surprise) it's flaky.
Phones, tablets, and 2 laptops are on 5GHZ wireless. I even scrapped 2 Chromecasts and replaced them with Roku 3s because (wait for it) you can plug them in!!!
OMG Chromecast's wifi suxxxx... Don't get me started....

We have one partner at our firm who constantly asks us to help him with his wireless printer out at the cabin. I asked him how close it was to his computer, he said "right beside it" I practically screamed at him "PLUG IT IN" I'll give you a USB cable, even a gold plated one, but for the love of $deity, plug it in!!

Then I overheard him asking the helpdesk person about it several months later. as I walked by I did the <cough plugitin cough> routine. Helpdesk person had trouble not losing it laughing...

[/rant]
 
I would have run cable if possible, but my house is totally finished (raised ranch) and its just not worth cutting into drywall. In a few months Ill have a new phone that will support 5.0ghz and in a few months the new chromecast V2 will also support 5.0ghz.. then I wont care anymore.
I just dont understand how an AP network 6 channels from the primary network can interfere. As far as my router is concerned all the cameras are wired. I live in the middle of nowhere so its surprising that people in the city with many networks with many devices on the 2.4ghz band dont complain about this more often.
 
If I had to do wireless cameras on 2.4 GHZ i'd split them up. 3 good quality access points, one on each of channels 1, 6 and 11. Divide up your 2.4 devices to split the bandwidth load across all 3.
Anything that can do 5GHZ put it on a 4th access point.
 
The_Penguin said:
So true! I'm the IT guy at our company, and that's what I always say. If you can plug it in, do it! wifi is for phones, tablets, and convenience.
At home I've gone to extreme lengths to be able to plug in everything, especially cameras. I have one that's still wireless, and (big surprise) it's flaky.
Phones, tablets, and 2 laptops are on 5GHZ wireless. I even scrapped 2 Chromecasts and replaced them with Roku 3s because (wait for it) you can plug them in!!!
OMG Chromecast's wifi suxxxx... Don't get me started....

We have one partner at our firm who constantly asks us to help him with his wireless printer out at the cabin. I asked him how close it was to his computer, he said "right beside it" I practically screamed at him "PLUG IT IN" I'll give you a USB cable, even a gold plated one, but for the love of $deity, plug it in!!

Then I overheard him asking the helpdesk person about it several months later. as I walked by I did the <cough plugitin cough> routine. Helpdesk person had trouble not losing it laughing...

[/rant]
Click to expand...
I now have THREE wireless routers at home, two of them wired directly to the central one that manages all the IP's, and I still can't get reliable coverage in one room (a room that even has one of the routers...still haven't figured that out)
I live in the middle of nowhere so its surprising that people in the city with many networks with many devices on the 2.4ghz band dont complain about this more often.
Click to expand...
Yeah I wonder about this, too. Sometimes I go to someone's house though and I always run speedtest once I get on wifi and often it's just a few mbps. They don't know how bad their network is.
 
MtnXfreeride said:
I live in the middle of nowhere so its surprising that people in the city with many networks with many devices on the 2.4ghz band dont complain about this more often.
Click to expand...

I suspect they just don't know any better. Like LittleBrother said, people often don't know how bad their network is. It makes me feel sorry for internet providers who get inundated with support requests because someone's wifi is not performing properly. When the local monopoly ISP in my area started announcing gigabit services about 6 months ago, their biggest bullet point was not the speed but the "carrier class 802.11ac wifi" provided by the included router. Because they know the number one most important thing for customer satisfaction is to give them faster and more reliable WiFi.
 
bp2008 said:
I suspect they just don't know any better. Like LittleBrother said, people often don't know how bad their network is. It makes me feel sorry for internet providers who get inundated with support requests because someone's wifi is not performing properly. When the local monopoly ISP in my area started announcing gigabit services about 6 months ago, their biggest bullet point was not the speed but the "carrier class 802.11ac wifi" provided by the included router. Because they know the number one most important thing for customer satisfaction is to give them faster and more reliable WiFi.
Click to expand...
I imagine they didn't emphasize too strongly the small print that virtually no devices support ac ;)

In some ways 5 ghz sucks even more than 2.4, because its range is so disastrous. I really don't think it's too much to ask for us to be able to buy FCC approved routers that blanket an entire house in a decent network, but it appears it is.
 
Yup. 5 GHz cannot penetrate obstructions as well as lower frequencies. But it is fantastic for long distances with clear line of sight! Last summer I set up a 5 Ghz wifi link about 20 miles long using a pair of Ubiquiti Rocket M5 radios on their big 3 foot dish antennas. Could have gotten away with using the 2 foot dishes no problem. It has full 100 Mbps speed in both directions. Would be faster, but the ethernet ports only go up to 100 Mbps on these older models :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom