How Many Cameras On Ubiquiti Radio
I'm gonna endeavor to do the calculations to encounter how many 3MP cameras a pair of Ubiquity LocoM5'due south will comfortably handle, but in the meantime I was wondering the maximum load anyone has successfully put on the M5 series (Loco or its bigger Nanostation cousin).
I've read the IPVM article on this product and looks like at least three cameras is possible, just how almost 5 or 10? I realize it depends on the megapixels, frame rate, etc, but I'd similar to get some real-world feedback if everyone has some.
For my purposes, distance is not a gene since I'1000 simply going a couple hundred yards with clear line of sight. My plan was a couple LocoM5'due south & a switch for that out-edifice, only my client at present wants to add a few more than cameras than was originally planned.
Whatsoever input is profoundly appreciated.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
I realize it depends on the megapixels, frame rate, etc
Technically, no, none of that matters. What matters is bitrate. Yes, bitrate is going to mostly exist a gene of frame-rate and resolution, but the nanostation (like any slice of network gear) does not care at all nearly fps, but mbps.
Distance and obstructions between the unit tin too affect maximum throughput, every bit will other wifi gear in the area.
For the units you're talking about in an average setting you should be able to go most 45Mbps throughput. With a fiddling bit of consideration paid to the install (picking a clear RF channel, proper aiming, positioning abroad from walls), you tin can get about 50-55 Mbps. Yous probable won't ever meet more than than 60Mbps of real throughput without a lot of luck.
How many cameras you lot tin can carry over 45-50Mbps will vary based on the photographic camera itself (run into other tests IPVM has done for bandwidth), but you should exist able to get about v-eight cameras on that link.
Concur
Disagree
Informative: 3
Unhelpful
Funny
In respond to Undisclosed #one | 10/17/xiv 02:52am
Maximum 60 Mbps?
Wow, that'south a far cry from the 150 Mbps Ubiquiti touts on their website.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Would be feasible to use two pairs of radios?
Concur
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
In answer to jason oneal | 10/xvi/14 07:51pm
That's an interesting thought.
Would each pair of M5'southward need it'southward own switch?
Would in that location be any interference between the 2 sets of nanostations, being they would exist then shut to each other? Although I guess setting them to different channels should take care of that.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
In reply to Jerome Humery | 10/xvi/14 08:23pm
I had a dealer utilize ii sets of nanos side by side each using almost 40Mbps with no problem with interference. We could take had two Nanos pointing to 1 AP nano just since it was simply 100Mb ethernet connection we didnt want to take the adventure.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
In reply to Vincent Tong | 10/sixteen/14 09:00pm
I would call his success more than luck than logic. About people wouldn't recommend two sets of transceivers that close together, merely rather upgrading to the next tier of equipment that is intended for college throughput.
Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Pro Focus LLC
In reply to Undisclosed #one | 10/17/14 01:53am
I agree with A Mfg. If ane head finish radio won't suffice, you need a better radio.
However, if you need more than than 1 for directional reasons, you tin can employ an RF Armor shield kit.
RF Armor Website
Concur
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Pro Focus LLC
ten/16/14 04:57pm
We take these deployed with 12 3MP and 4 D1 cameras on a single link. We cap our 3MP bitrate at 4mbps VBR. The D1 is capped at 1024kbps VBR. We haven't seen a single outcome, but it is using a Dahua DVR, non a real VMS, and so there isn't much every bit far equally reporting issues. Last time I checked at night, nosotros were not close to saturating that link. The altitude for that link is under 100'.
We have a second location that uses the aforementioned radios with 3 3MP cams, again VBR 4mbps capped. These have a Dahua NVR, so once again, reporting is minimal, merely accept all the same to have any issues, other than needing one reboot in 3 years in service.
A third location was recently installed with v 3MP VBR 4mbps capped per radio (two sets) and at that location we are running DW Spectrum. Have still to receive a unmarried electronic mail most network issues. If you're non familiar with DWS, it unremarkably nags you about network issues ofttimes. This site has been very quiet. So much so I checked the logs to be sure.
Concord
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny
We take run five 10 4MP cams from 200' to two back to dorsum radios hands accommodating them and no issues.
Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny
Equally of today we are running vii on ptp nanos m2 1/4 mile from each other at 48dcbms, in a unpolluted 2ghz area.
Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny
Thanks for all the replies. Every bit always the input is very helpful.
Hold
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
But to confirm, existent world one way throughput of Nanostation M5s over short distances is in the guild of 50Mbit/s, as opposed to the figures touted past Ubiquiti. This is primarily due to the processor operation (tin't handle higher packets per second). So bigger packets = larger throughput.
Ubiquiti have recently launched the Nanobeam family unit of units. Similar pricing to Nanostations but with 560MHz processors instead of 400MHz. These should offer a significant throughput comeback, although the hard upper limit will be prepare by the 100Mbit/southward Ethernet port.
Concord
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
In reply to Andrew Somerville | 11/09/14 06:03pm
Andrew,
Thanks then much for that input.
Did you hateful to say the PowerBeam units? I but went to the Ubiquiti site and those are listed with the higher chapters. These PowerBeams await similar the perfect solution for my project. The Nanostaions are just to close for comfort because their much lower real-globe throughput.
Later on reading the specs on the PowerBeams, it looks like they are all-encompassing units similar the Nanostations in that there is no need for a seperate Rocket unit or the like. Am I correct?
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Not quite. Ubiquiti has slightly confused affair by (a) rebranding some products and (b) having one production range (PowerBeam) with two unlike throughput capabilities.
And then to analyze:
The new NanoBeam G production range is effectively a direct replacement for Nanostations and Nanostation Locos. 5GHz only, small, depression cost and fully integrated. The new model has better antennas with cleaner radiations patterns and faster processors than the old models. Come across Ubiquiti - NanoBeam® Thousand
The PowerBeam range is intended for longer altitude links. For 5GHz it has larger dishes (12 inch, 16 inch or 20 inch) delivering higher gain. Radios and dishes come as split up components that need to be fitted together and unit prices are higher. Throughput performance depends upon the model. The 12 inch and 16 inch variants have effectively the same radio and processor every bit the Nanobeam Ms, and so maximum functioning should exist similar but with less dropoff over distance. PowerBeams likewise have gigabit Ethernet ports. The 20 inch variant has a better processor and the radio technology is based upon 802.11ac rather than 802.11n. This is the only variant for which Ubiquiti quotes a 450 Mbps throughput. Once more what people have seen in the real world is a quite a bit lower but it is nonetheless in the order of 250 Mbps
Hold
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
In respond to Andrew Somerville | xi/09/fourteen 07:31pm
Thanks for that clarification.
If I understand correctly, the new NanoBeam M, even though listed at the same 150 Mbps will be much closer to that spec in existent-globe terms than the previous Nanostations.
Sorry for belaboring on the details, but as you tin probably tell I don't take much experience in this type of wireless equipment and so I want to make certain I empathise the nuances.
I have a large project in process that includes a seperate garage edifice that was supposed to accept 3-four cameras (hence the Nanostaion setup). Now the client has added 2 more cameras, and final Friday dropped a bombshell on me. They now want to accept the whole back truck lot covered, which will also tie into the garage setup and hence feed through wirelessly back to the primary building.
So at present, fifty-fifty though the PowerBeam is overkill distance wise, I'm actually contemplating it to handle the extra capacity in example the client adds the dorsum-lot to the project. I had a feeling this was going to happen, then I ran a gigabit line to the antenna site on the main building but in example.
If you have any other suggestions for shorter distance (~200m), higher throughput wireless equipment, I'd be very appreciative.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Pro Focus LLC
In reply to Jerome Humery | xi/09/14 10:19pm
Jerome,
Do you have a bitrate cap planned? How much information practice you anticipate traveling through this wireless link? Accept you surveyed the expanse for existing WiFi networks? Using 5GHz should assistance in congested areas, but one shouldn't assume 5GHz is always clear. You should do a site survey to be sure. Also, if it is that disquisitional to the projection, buy a couple of radios and run some testing. That way you take existent globe examples.
Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
In reply to Jon Dillabaugh | 11/09/14 11:42pm
Thanks for the suggestions Jon.
I've got 3MP Hikvision bullets that I do program on capping, but there are too many variables at the moment to have a difficult set number. While the customer is making up their listen virtually the back lot, I'grand boning-upwardly as much as possible on stronger alternatives to what I had planned.
Heck, I even looked at trenching over to the garage since it is all grass & compacted dirt driveway between the 2 buildings. But, it's a rural expanse with a articulate path between buildings, and in that location is simply a small wi-fi network nearby in the office. So wireless should work fine, specially if I bump the organisation upwards to a PowerBeam.
I assume truck radios are too far from the 5GHz range to come up into play?
Hold
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Pro Focus LLC
In respond to Jerome Humery | 11/10/fourteen 12:47am
Exercise y'all accept any idea about a full number of cams you need to support via the wireless backhaul?
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
In answer to Jon Dillabaugh | 11/10/14 01:42am
My best estimate at the moment is 4 for within the garage, and probably half-dozen for the back lot, so a total of ten. Hopefully, I won't accept to cap the cameras too far down because the clients are now spoiled with the video quality of the master system which is upwardly & running (20 cameras). Nosotros'll see, I've already told them at that place are limits to what tin can be installed given their wireless budget.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Pro Focus LLC
In reply to Jerome Humery | eleven/x/14 02:13am
Ten cams capped at 4Mbps each should work fine over a unmarried set of M5s. Simply that won't give you any room for future growth.
Agree: ane
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
In reply to Jon Dillabaugh | 11/10/14 09:50am
Yeah, that was also my (although somewhat inexperienced) assessment. The PowerBeam is not that much more of a bump in budget, so I think I'm gonna go with the actress throughput.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
To get the full radio rates of the ac product, you need a clear 80MHz channel. Bold you are installing in the US, you might find that difficult given the small amount of spectrum you currently have available. So in practice you may be limited to lx or 40 MHz. Nevertheless even at 40MHz you should exist able to accomplish sustained user rates well in excess of 100 Mbps. So y'all are probably right to go with the flexibility offered by the Powerbeam. The larger dishes will as well provide more directivity and hence greater isolation from external interference.
For the price there is no existent alternative that will offer meliorate performance. If you are willing to pay quite a lot more than then you can motility to carrier form 5GHz point to betoken solutions such as Infinet Wireless or Cambium. The main advantages of these products are custom radio modules that provide more than robust connectivity, ameliorate quality antennas and automated naught outage aqueduct change in the event of interference.
The final pick is to use millimetric (60GHz). Over a 200m distance the Siklu EH600 volition provide reliable total duplex Gigabit capacity, all in a minor package weighing around 4 pounds and costing effectually $5000 per link. Here in Europe the band is licence gratis - not sure of the rules in the United states of america.
Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny
In reply to Andrew Somerville | xi/10/xiv 12:02am
Thanks and so much for the alternating options Andrew.
Information technology does audio like Ubiquiti is my only option toll-wise. Even though my client has never coughed at my invoices, I think spending $5000 on a wireless link might exceed their comfort zone. I'm going to take all the info you guys have generously given me and going to research farther a PowerBeam setup.
On a side annotation: Even though they drive me batty at times with all the changes, these are great clients and pay me T&1000 for this even though I am all the same learning. This means I get to learn on the chore and put what I learn here at IPVM to practice. In turn, I keep my invoices fair and expect out for their all-time interest. It's not often you get this kind of trust working both ways in client/contractor relationships. Very refreshing.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Source: https://ipvm.com/forums/video-surveillance/topics/ubiquity-nanostation-m5-maximum-cameras
Posted by: schmidtfassescarde52.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Many Cameras On Ubiquiti Radio"
Post a Comment