08-14-2017 02:11 PM - edited 08-14-2017 02:15 PM
We are planning to upgrade our older CCTV system, which has 26 cameras, to Unifi. We currently run an additional 11 Unifi G3 cameras on the hardware NVR, but are looking for something that would be able to handle 30+ cameras. We would be using a standalone computer/NVR that would be used soley for Unifi, being able to save at least 1 month of video at a time. We also have 2 viewing locations, one in our Main office for entrances, and one in our IT office with full system view. What specs/recomendations do you have for this style of deployment?
Any suggestions would be welcome! We have not yet done a Unifi Video large scale deployment, but are looking forward to it.
08-14-2017 04:49 PM
I would go with:
- Intel - Core i5-6600 Quad-Core Processor
- At least 16GB of memory (DDR4-2400 Memory)
- At least a 6TB HDD or better for video recording
- Samsung - 950 PRO 256GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive (for the OS)
You can get help configuring your rig at https://pcpartpicker.com. The site is great.
Here is another setup by Chris from CrossTalk Solutions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQuAHF-xl0E
08-14-2017 05:18 PM - edited 08-14-2017 05:21 PM
Unfortunately, I would suggest you look elsewhere unless you are prepared to spend a lot of time troubleshooting UniFi Video.
We've been with UniFi for years now and while it has improved a hundred times compared to what it was, it remains buggy and frustrating.
As far as recording and motion capture, it is mostly excellent with a few very serious bugs here and there (cameras randomly disconnect -- whenever you ask UniFi, you'll generally hear oh, that's an IO issue on your end [We are running FreeNAS, and had a senior technician from IX Systems, who support FreeNAS look at our system and they couldn't identify a single IO issue] or that it will be corrected in the next version)
As far as live view, it's terrible. See our other post link .
We are running 45 G3 Cameras -- details of our server are also on the thread above.
Our storage is able to support 3 - 4 months retention on motion record on all 45 cameras.
Plus getting support from them is like pulling teeth sometimes. Again -- MUCH improved, in the past they refused to even do any remote troubleshooting -- finally, I think with @UBNT-Matt_B_ on the team, things have improved greatly. He's connected to our system before and given us some advice.
However, there are still times -- like now -- when we have our live view screens crashing regularly -- that we have to wait quite some time to get respones on the Forum (which is their only real way of getting support).
Don't think about calling / chatting with them either-- it's not even close to being enterprise grade support. I wouldn't even say it's consumer grade support. Last time I called them it was just a voicemail prompt. Left probably 4 - 5 messages over the course of a few weeks, never got a call back. It may have improved since then (probably a year ago) but.... I doubt it.
If you want peace of mind, look elsewhere.
Can't beat the cost though, and they look nice. But we really are very frustrated (not new - check our post history) with UFV, and I think many other people are as well. Though, there are always people who are happy with it, so I'd read through forum posts if I were you to see what the general opinion is.
Just noticed in your original post that you are already running UFV for some cameras, in which case, much of the above won't apply to you -- however, food for thought before putting more money into the system.
How are your live view kiosks working, by the way? Are they stable 24/7?
08-15-2017 08:18 AM
Storage write speed is one of the places I've seen the most issues pop up as far as preformance. Linux handles it far better than windows so I would definitely go that direction.
As far as storage size, you can calculate it pretty close for full time record.
Motion record will be less predictable, but will be less than FT.
Viewing is where I tend to feel like the options on UFV fall short. I really wish they would allow us to stream congregate live views out over RTSP or something like that. viewing large numbers of streams over the network with the aggregate overhead of all of them is really taxing on the network. We tend to us NUCs with an Ubuntu desktop to let users open up the live view, or stream an RTSP feed through VLC if they only need one camera.
08-15-2017 08:34 AM
viewing large numbers of streams over the network with the aggregate overhead of all of them is really taxing on the network...
IMHO the bottleneck is most often not the network (assuming local to the LAN) but rather the resouces on the viewing PC. Of course if you meant WAN, then I must agree.