FTP vs Recording

darccloud92

Could someone explain the difference to me between ftp and just having the cameras record? I finally got ftp working, so I have the option of using scheduled ftp or scheduled recordings. Would one put more strain on a network/ require better internet speed? There are 7 cameras set up, 1 is model RLC 420, and 6 are model RLC 410, all poe. They would be recording/using ftp 5 days of the week, 7am-4pm, then recording/using ftp the rest of the time if there is movement.

Crimp On

My understanding is that FTP (File Transfer Protocol) implies sending a "file". Since the 410 camera has no internal storage, the only "file" it could FTP would be an image. (Other camera models use memory cards to record motion events, which can be played back or transferred later.) So, it doesn't seem like FTP really applies to the 410 as far as motion recording is concerned.

Traditional POE cameras, like the 410 are intended to stream (either constantly, or when they detect motion) to a server that they are constantly connected to. (Such as one of Reolink's NVR models, a NAS system, or software like Blue Iris.)

I don't have an NVR, so I purchased models with SDCards which store recordings on the camera.

Hope you find a way to do what you want.

darccloud92

They're all sending video files through ftp just fine, including the 410's. We use a Windows 2012 Server that all the cameras send the files too. I was just more wondering if ftp would cause the internet to be slower or be a burden on the network.

Crimp On

I'm so glad you posted this, because it opens up entirely new possibilities for me. Can you please describe more about the video files? Like, when the camera is recording constantly, does it send one GIANT file for the whole time? Does it break recordings up into set length? The video files I've seen have REALLY ugly names. How do you know which files have motion (and which do not)?

Thanks

FongJeng Kum

Hi,

I have 5 REOLINK IPC cameras and they are all recording constantly to my FTP server (vsftp).
I have used "slurm" to check the bandwidth usage of it and I don't see it's taking up alot of bandwidth, only about an avg of 5000KB/s (equivalent to 5MB/s) over my 1Gbps ethernet network at home.

Theoretically, a 1Gbps ethernet can reach 125MB/s. So, it's actually only taking up about 4% of my home network bandwidth.

Hope this helps.

wictod

Hi,

It's not going to impact the Internet speed if the FTP is local to the Cameras. I use FTP for 4 cameras to record rather than an NVR. Through cost I converted an old junked PC I had laying around to an FTP server and stuck it in the garage and connected back to my internet router via those LAN extenders which use the earth wiring in the house.. no obvious degradation of internet speed from my wifi devices on the same network..

darccloud92

Ah ok thank you for all the helpful replies! So far the network doesn't seem slower for anyone. The only thing that runs slower is the server itself, which isn't a big deal. Also @dick-bednar sorry for the late reply, the video files are all small, only a few minutes long. I have the FTP settings to have a maximum length of 100MB. I have camera recording off. The different cameras send the video files to different folders so I know which camera is which. To know which file is which in the folder I just use the windows folder settings. Like I click the organize by date modified at the top of the window.

Paul

Hi, i see you have vsftpd setup on ubuntu. I had to rebuild my OS ubuntu and setup vsftpd again.

I seem to have trouble with testing ftp and it completing.

The test folder is there, the test file is there but it's size is 0.

ipcamera@kabo:/data/IPCamera/garage$ ls -l
total 68
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:35 ipcamera_test20180430133456
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:45 ipcamera_test20180430134541
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:46 ipcamera_test20180430134635
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:52 ipcamera_test20180430135216
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:57 ipcamera_test20180430135752
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:58 ipcamera_test20180430135758
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:58 ipcamera_test20180430135816
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:58 ipcamera_test20180430135843
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 13:59 ipcamera_test20180430135906
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:10 ipcamera_test20180430141030
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:11 ipcamera_test20180430141101
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:11 ipcamera_test20180430141121
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:11 ipcamera_test20180430141132
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:13 ipcamera_test20180430141347
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:14 ipcamera_test20180430141428
drwxrws---+ 2 ipcamera workgroup 4096 Apr 30 14:01 test
-rw-rw---- 1 ipcamera workgroup 27 Apr 30 14:12 test1
ipcamera@kabo:/data/IPCamera/garage$ cd ipcamera_test20180430141428
ipcamera@kabo:/data/IPCamera/garage/ipcamera_test20180430141428$ ls -l
total 0
-rwxrwx--- 1 ipcamera workgroup 0 Apr 30 14:14 test20180430141428.txt
ipcamera@kabo:/data/IPCamera/garage/ipcamera_test20180430141428$

Are you using the default config for vsftpd?

using latest firmware on 410ws and 411ws, same result.