X-vision Xp16sw100e

[xviz]

Hi everyone.

I'm new here, so please no hassle if I haven't done something I should have! I did however have a dig about and didn't see any posts relating to this topic, hence my posting!

We've not long purchased an X-vision XP16SW100E dvr card. Translated into English, that's a 16 channel, 100fps card.

If anyone's interested, it's a first rate card and software if you just want to record and playback on the computer it's installed on.

However, I've had a fair bit of trouble getting it to connect well via the internet. If you don't mind, I'll give some details, as I found this forum via google, and someone else might be looking for a solution to my problems that I've solved so far:

The X-Vision client software, and web server for viewing in any web-page require a Video (port 8100), Audio (port 8200) and Voice (port 8500) ports opened on your router. That's not a surprise and is written in the manuals. What is a surprise is when you do this and can't log in! I checked what ports were sitting in listening mode on the computer and found port 5500 was listening and was opened by the X-Vision PCDVR server software. It seems this port is used for authentication, so you won't be able to login unless you open this port! The software I'm using is the X-Vision 2008 PCDVR software. Not sure if there's any better version info than that, but it's the latest version as of the date of this post.

Having solved the above mystery (took a little while of tinkering), I got access and thought all was well. However, when you access via a web browser, the downloading of the images which make up the page happens painfully slowly, and the image viewing is unreliable at best. For example, it loads up fairly slowly to view 9 frames. On clicking on one, you get it large, which can be pretty slow. When you click again back to 9 frames, you'll often get a random 1 or 2 frames appearing, but the rest fail to load. Similarly with the PCDVR client software. If you click on a large view, then back down, you can miss what you were wanting to see by the time it loads up, or doesn't as the case may be. Rather annoying.

The connection is plenty fast enough (I use VNC apps to access the remote computer for admin stuff, and a previous card worked perfectly fast before I upgraded to the X-Vision one), and the images which do load, transfer suitably quickly. Perhaps a frame a second each, which isn't bad for broadband. I'm happy enough with that. It's just the huge delay in them appearing that is the problem. It's almost like the software requests the stream, and the X-Vision software intentionally delays sending it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't always seem to be this slow, and more unfortunately wasn't this slow the other day when I was on to Y3K tech support. They were certainly well intentioned, but not able to suggest a solution particularly. There was a suggestion from the guy I spoke to that it might be a shortage of memory/video memory/processor speed given the machine was a little on the old side, so we decided to bite the bullet and upgrade it to a pretty high spec machine for the job. Nothing too amazing, but more than decent (2GHz dual core, 1gig ram, 256meg video).

[james.wilson]

xviz, i havnt had any professional experience of the card you mention and professionals rarely use cards, we tend to use machines.

I personally would class this as equipment designed for the diy'er so doubt any of us will have much if any experiance with it.

But i would say that a bandwidth problem isnt really a fault of the manufacturer.

James

[xviz]

But i would say that a bandwidth problem isnt really a fault of the manufacturer.

I don't think there's a bandwidth issue. OK, it's only half meg upload on the server side, but the previous card ran fine with it.

What is strange is that the throughput is fine...a pretty acceptable 1-3 frames per second. That I don't mind. It's the latency period for the video streams to appear that is shockingly long (can be 1 sec which is brilliant, but can be 2-3 mins which isn't)....nothing to do with the broadband I'm pretty sure.

The reason a dvr card was chosen for this was mainly down to storage. DVR machines generally have pretty poor hard drives for cheapness sake, but not only that, none that I know of allow raid backup. This system is running in a place where you can't afford to lose any video due to hardware failure because there's a good odds something criminal happened on it! Not only that, but given the prices of professional dvr machines, we were happy to be able to spec our precise reliable system for a fraction of the cost!

[Guest anguscanplay]

Not only that, but given the prices of professional dvr machines, we were happy to be able to spec our precise reliable system for a fraction of the cost!

I should think that if tech couldnt help improve the performance then the slow connection is the payoff ....

[Chorlton]

This system is running in a place where you can't afford to lose any video due to hardware failure because there's a good odds something criminal happened on it! Not only that, but given the prices of professional dvr machines, we were happy to be able to spec our precise reliable system for a fraction of the cost!

Contradiction there xviz.

You went cheap & it went wrong, happens every day.

It's a trade off: you saved

[xviz]

Contradiction there xviz.

You went cheap & it went wrong, happens every day.

It's a trade off: you saved

[Chorlton]

Would you suggest an alternative card which you would consider to be better then? Reduced price is a bonus, but either way, the most important thing is reliability. Had this computer running for three and a half years without a blink of downtime till I upgraded it the other week. Overall, it probably isn't cheaper by the time you build the computer and fit the card etc. but then again, I'm getting the best kit on the market in it, apart perhaps from this X-Vision card. Had two from them before (not the one replaced on this particular computer) and they were both perfect, but this new one with new software seems to not be nearly so quick via remote connection.

I understand you guys who are in the trade like a box which you just stick in and you don't need to see what goes on behind the scenes, and if it fails, you just replace it under guarantee or get the customer to pay for a new one out of guarantee. Fair enough, but for me, there doesn't seem to be a dvr offering the exact features I'm looking for (in particular raid hard drives, and reliable bomb proof components), hence why I build these boxes, and fit the cards.

Obviously it's not or you would not have made your previous statement

"we were happy to be able to spec our precise reliable system for a fraction of the cost!"

That's your opinion of us is it?

And your asking for "our" help, nice.

[satsuma01]

Its always the same with pc card machines they will never gove the same peformance as a PROPER DVR unit. (or the box that you refer to! ) imho pc cards are for diy use for people to be able to have cctv on their pc without another box and monitor. and as for your comment about the plug in and just replace if it breaks attitude youve hit a raw nerve there with me because which ever new dvr i always like to try any new stuff out before i loose it out to potential customers and only use equipment i know will give satisfactory results. !!

satsuma.

[james.wilson]

There are a few pro dvrs that can do raid. Raid 5 'can' be used and i have done various benchmarks with it. As im sure you know raid 5 has relativly poor write speed and this is worse with small files. As a rule cctv is lots of sequential small writes. This doesnt scale. It will work on a small machine (ie number of cams) but sustaining the write speed of raid 1 for example is impossible on a raid 5 array. Hardware raid will help here but really costs.

We have used dm machines in a raid 1 config, but again as you say it isnt cheap.

Id say the problem you are having with lag is probably to do with your remote viewing using either ms media player, or the same lib, maybe you are using ie.

As i said before i have never used a 'card' as its not as you rightly say the pro way as we would have to support the machine it was fitted into etc. Also windows non server versions are not an ideal IMHO platform for CCTV uses. Just an opinion.

What have tech support said?

[satsuma01]

There are a few pro dvrs that can do raid. Raid 5 'can' be used and i have done various benchmarks with it. As im sure you know raid 5 has relativly poor write speed and this is worse with small files. As a rule cctv is lots of sequential small writes. This doesnt scale. It will work on a small machine (ie number of cams) but sustaining the write speed of raid 1 for example is impossible on a raid 5 array. Hardware raid will help here but really costs.

We have used dm machines in a raid 1 config, but again as you say it isnt cheap.

Id say the problem you are having with lag is probably to do with your remote viewing using either ms media player, or the same lib, maybe you are using ie.

As i said before i have never used a 'card' as its not as you rightly say the pro way as we would have to support the machine it was fitted into etc. Also windows non server versions are not an ideal IMHO platform for CCTV uses. Just an opinion.

What have tech support said?

i thing the op said tech support wernt much help iirc but i may be wrong.