Unmanaged switch and pfSense

amrogers3

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
623
Theoretical scenario: let's say I have 16 4K cameras connected to a 16 port PoE unmanaged 10/100 switch connected to a port on the NVR capable of GB transmission.

I have a pfSense box with two NICs. Both are being used and can connect to the internet.

1. would I need a switch with at least one GB connection for the NVR? I figure with that much data going across the connection between the switch and NVR, the connection would have to be GB?
2. could I enable VLANs on one of the pfSense NICs to create a separate network to block all traffic to internet? Trying to prevent cameras from reaching the internet. This will allow me to manage via http/https but won't let the cameras talk out.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 6.36.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 6.36.09 PM.png
    64.5 KB · Views: 0

BlueLineSwinger

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
1,115
  1. Maybe? Are all 16 cameras going to be recording simultaneously? If so then yeah, a better switch is probably going to be needed. Not only for gigabit ethernet to the NVR, but simply because the buffers/caches on an old 100 Mb switch may not be able to keep up. If only a small number are actually recording at any given time you might be OK. I'd check the specs of the cameras and NVR and see what the manufacturer has to say.
  2. An unmanaged switch has no concept of VLANs, so enabling them on the router's link to it will probably do nothing but cause headaches. If you can get a managed switch with VLAN support it would be a good idea to segment off the cameras. Alternately, if you can add another LAN NIC to the router you can simply get a second switch for any network devices that do require Internet access.
 

SamirD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
4,793
1. Probably. Seems that 4k cameras can demand as high as 15Mbs each, so x16 that would be 240Mbs, which is well beyond even 100Mb full duplex. But as mentioned above, that's only if you're maxing it out. Plus, I think cameras will throttle back if they start dropping frames, so you may be able to run with 100Mb at first and then upgrade when you need to.
2. Why would you need to manage the cameras directly? Once they're setup on the nvr, just log into the nvr and configure from there. The complication is that normally the nvr and cameras are on their own separate network and subnet so there's a bunch of different problems you run into if you want to connect your 'normal' network that physical network. Generally when I have to connect to two different networks like that I just use 2x nics (or a dual nic), one for each network. And this could be as simple as a wired connection to the nvr/camera network and wireless to your normal one.
 

amrogers3

Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
623
1. Not only for gigabit ethernet to the NVR, but simply because the buffers/caches on an old 100 Mb switch may not be able to keep up.

What specs would I need to check, for the switch I am looking at, I see

Switching Capacity 8.8 Gbps
Packet Forwarding Rate 6.55 Mpps
Packet Buffer Memory 4 Mb

2. if you can add another LAN NIC to the router you can simply get a second switch for any network devices that do require Internet access.

I can't add another NIC. That would be the easiest way. Looks like I am going to need a managed switch. So if I use a managed switch, can I put the cameras on the existing network but isolate them via VLAN on the managed switch?

I dont know how to calculate it correctly because there are 3 streams, main, sub, and third stream.

From my understanding, I'll have recording going (first stream), live stream (sub stream), and I am not sure what the 3rd stream does.

Main stream: 3840 × 2160 @(1–25/30 fps)
Sub stream: 704 × 576@1–25 fps/704 × 480@1–30 fps
Third stream: 1920 × 1080 @ (1–25/30 fps)

Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 7.55.12 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 6.36.09 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-10-25 at 6.36.09 PM.png
    64.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Top