Ok, I have two cameras running at 1080p. Most of the time, the CPU usage for Sighthound is 10-15%, which is reasonable. But it seems to peg the entire processor out at random. I've been watching it this morning. With no apparent objects in the frame of either camera in motion, the processor will hit 100% utilization for a few minutes at a time.
I also have 7 or so instances of "Sighthound Agent.exe *32" running in task manager...I assume that's normal.
I'm wanting to eventually have 4-6 cameras running (although the others will probably be 720p), but I'm worried that it's maxing out the CPU already.
Thoughts?
CPU usage
Moderator: Staff
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
Devin - Posts: 719
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:48 pm
Re: CPU usage
Hi jbrannen,
The spike in resource usage is likely the disk cleaner which cleans up your temporary video and sets up your video saved by rules. I'd be happy to take a look at your logs for anything unusual if you could submit a bug report by going to "Help > Report a Problem". Be sure to link this forum post when submitting the report.
You can roughly test how your computer will handle extra cameras by adding duplicates of your two cameras. Note that some cameras do not handle multiple connections well and this may use up a lot of bandwidth.
Regards,
-Devin
The spike in resource usage is likely the disk cleaner which cleans up your temporary video and sets up your video saved by rules. I'd be happy to take a look at your logs for anything unusual if you could submit a bug report by going to "Help > Report a Problem". Be sure to link this forum post when submitting the report.
You can roughly test how your computer will handle extra cameras by adding duplicates of your two cameras. Note that some cameras do not handle multiple connections well and this may use up a lot of bandwidth.
Regards,
-Devin
-
jbrannen - Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:37 am
Re: CPU usage
Well, right now, my license is limited to two cameras, and since I don't yet have a third, I've not yet needed to spend the coin to upgrade to a license that allows for unlimited cameras. I'll submit the log.
-
jbrannen - Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:37 am
Re: CPU usage
UPDATE:
With the temporary license that enables me unlimited cameras, here's what I've got. Four cameras at 1080p runs the CPU at 40%-60% load, sometimes going up to 80% or so, and still pegging out at 100% for minutes at a time. Any more cameras than that, and the CPU is always maxed out at 100%, meaning that something is going to get missed.
This just all seems really excessive. Processor is a 4.0 GHz AMD FX-8350.
I'm not seeing how a typical computer can handle 6 or 8 high resolution cameras, and it makes zero financial sense to build a machine with enough horsepower to handle all of that, considering a NVR is way cheaper, and that there are even boxes like this with positively wimpy CPUs that can accomplish the task.
What am I missing here?
With the temporary license that enables me unlimited cameras, here's what I've got. Four cameras at 1080p runs the CPU at 40%-60% load, sometimes going up to 80% or so, and still pegging out at 100% for minutes at a time. Any more cameras than that, and the CPU is always maxed out at 100%, meaning that something is going to get missed.
This just all seems really excessive. Processor is a 4.0 GHz AMD FX-8350.
I'm not seeing how a typical computer can handle 6 or 8 high resolution cameras, and it makes zero financial sense to build a machine with enough horsepower to handle all of that, considering a NVR is way cheaper, and that there are even boxes like this with positively wimpy CPUs that can accomplish the task.
What am I missing here?
-
tcesario - Posts: 67
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:03 pm
Re: CPU usage
jbrannen,
I wasn't familiar with the DIGIOP ELEMENTS software that runs on the NVR you linked to, but motion detection isn't even a bullet on the feature list here: http://www.infinias.com/video/digiop-elements-software. "Intelligent" motion detection is the key selling point of Sighthound. There are many options for just recording video streams; there's nothing special about that and it doesn't take much CPU to do so. If that's all you need, Sighthound might be overkill. Since both Sighthound and DIGIOP ELEMENTS have free demos available, you can evaluate for your needs at zero risk.
By the way, the NVR you linked to looks like a terrible buy (dual core Celeron, 2GB RAM, 2TB HD, DIGIOP ELEMENTS SW, for $1,700?) Ouch!
Good luck,
Tony
I wasn't familiar with the DIGIOP ELEMENTS software that runs on the NVR you linked to, but motion detection isn't even a bullet on the feature list here: http://www.infinias.com/video/digiop-elements-software. "Intelligent" motion detection is the key selling point of Sighthound. There are many options for just recording video streams; there's nothing special about that and it doesn't take much CPU to do so. If that's all you need, Sighthound might be overkill. Since both Sighthound and DIGIOP ELEMENTS have free demos available, you can evaluate for your needs at zero risk.
By the way, the NVR you linked to looks like a terrible buy (dual core Celeron, 2GB RAM, 2TB HD, DIGIOP ELEMENTS SW, for $1,700?) Ouch!
Good luck,
Tony
-
jbrannen - Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:37 am
Re: CPU usage
Oh I agree that the price is a ripoff, but it does prove that a wimpy CPU can handle multiple cameras. If sighthound has to re-encode the stream to write it disk (which makes no sense because the cameras stream is already h.264), then that's the problem. I'm not going to build a $2000 box to be able to run 6 cameras.
-
tcesario - Posts: 67
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:03 pm
Re: CPU usage
Hi jbrannen,
Yep, doesn't take much CPU to simply write streams to disk. However, Sighthound does a lot more than just writing streams to disk, as I've attempted to explain in my previous post.
Also, you don't need a $2K box to handle 6 cameras if you're willing to compromise a bit on resolution (down to 720p) and framerate. I'm running 7 HD cameras (3 at 1080p, 4 at 720p) on a new Mac Mini (i5) which cost me $699. There are undoubtedly PC's with i7s more capable for the same or less $$. There are multiple threads on these topics in this very forum.
-Tony
Yep, doesn't take much CPU to simply write streams to disk. However, Sighthound does a lot more than just writing streams to disk, as I've attempted to explain in my previous post.
Also, you don't need a $2K box to handle 6 cameras if you're willing to compromise a bit on resolution (down to 720p) and framerate. I'm running 7 HD cameras (3 at 1080p, 4 at 720p) on a new Mac Mini (i5) which cost me $699. There are undoubtedly PC's with i7s more capable for the same or less $$. There are multiple threads on these topics in this very forum.
-Tony
-
Semper Vaporo - Posts: 331
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:51 am
Re: CPU usage
While I do like the highest resolution possible for all my cameras, I have found that even at the highest setting, I can tell who is walking by or up my driveway by the way they walk more than I can tell by facial features... they are just too far away for the high resolution to really be an advantage... and that high resolution has the disadvantage of chewing up massive amounts of disk space and CPU time handling it.
So, on my system with 6 cameras, I have only one set to HD and its view is of limited depth on my porch and I can utilize that high resolution to make out details, but the other 5 cameras as set to 640x480 and that works just fine for detecting motion without overburdening the CPU or filling the HD with huge video files. I could probably get by with even lower resolution, but I do like to see "some" detail; it all depends on available disk space, CPU speed, and the acceptable resolution and frame rate for the purpose the camera has.
So, on my system with 6 cameras, I have only one set to HD and its view is of limited depth on my porch and I can utilize that high resolution to make out details, but the other 5 cameras as set to 640x480 and that works just fine for detecting motion without overburdening the CPU or filling the HD with huge video files. I could probably get by with even lower resolution, but I do like to see "some" detail; it all depends on available disk space, CPU speed, and the acceptable resolution and frame rate for the purpose the camera has.
Semper Vaporo,
-
jbrannen - Posts: 24
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:37 am
Re: CPU usage
See, the resolution is a big deal. If anything happens, I want lots of detail, especially at night. If you can't make out a face from a reasonable distance, you don't really have that much information as to what took place.