Replacing failed ATVideo with Dahua/Blue Iris

K

korin

Young grasshopper
Jul 20, 2016
41
6
Seattle, WA
Hello, I am trying to replace a failed NVR system for my local animal rescue facility. The system they had was an NVR16P from ATVideo (8 and 16 Channel NVR with PoE | Network Recorders | IP Video Solutions | Products | Advanced Technology Video)

The facility already has about 12 fixed-dome PoE cameras installed, all ATV branded, similar to those on this page IP Video Solutions | Products | Advanced Technology Video. I assume the NVR and cameras are just whitelabel hardware that's been rebranded with the ATVideo brand, but I don't know the true manufacturer.

I need a replacement system that will support the existing cameras, ideally provide some room for expansion, and allow monitoring from other computers on the local network. Other features would be "nice to have", but aren't critical, such as remote viewing over the internet, mobile app, alerting.

I'm a little wary of NVRs with built-in PoE switches, since that's the component that failed in the old system, but if there's a significant savings over an external switch, I'll go that route. I do want to keep the cameras isolated from the rest of the LAN.

I'm trying to decide between a used PC with BlueIris (which is what I use at home), and a Dahua unit. I'm leaning toward the Dahua for simplicity, but I'm overwhelmed by the assortment of models and features. I need to do this as inexpensively as is practical since this is a non-profit without lots of money to burn. Can anyone offer suggestions?

Is there an inexpensive Dahua unit with just 2 LAN ports but with support for 16 or more cameras? Would A Dahua likely work with the existing cameras? Would it be cheaper/safer to go with BlueIris?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat200
korin said:
Hello, I am trying to replace a failed NVR system for my local animal rescue facility. ...?
Click to expand...

Hi Korin,

I would consider first what failed.

examples:
If it was the power supply, you can easily enough replace that.
If the HDD that is also an easy replacement.
Was the firmware compromised / jacked? ( that is was the system cyber attacked / hijacked / cyberjacked )

If you want to replace the NVR then I would try to determine:
Is it a Hikvision OEM or a Dahua OEM - and ideally match it.

If the cameras are ONVIF and they're not doing any advanced features, then Andy should have a NVR which would work well for their needs.
 
The integrated PoE switch is what failed. The device boots successfully, but once powered up, it is totally unresponsive and after about 60 seconds it automatically reboots. If I disconnect the ribbon cable to the PoE module, it starts successfully, is fully responsive and stays online, but unfortunately without the PoE module there's no way to connect the cameras and since I'm not an authorized ATVideo dealer, I can't get a replacement module (plus it would probably cost nearly as much as a Dahua to replace the unit).

I did have some hope that the problem was just an old power supply unable to fully power the PoE module, but I replaced it and it didn't solve the problem.

Your post encouraged me to dig a little deeper and I found that the mainboard inside the NVR is silkscreened with "Jupiter Plus Main v1.33". A Google search lead me to a "Jupiter Plus 16" model HNR-16412 from Hitron, who appears to be the OEM: http://eng.hitron.co.kr/product/hnr-841016410-hnr-841216412/
They also manufacture dome cameras, so I assume those are the ones rebranded by ATVideo and used in the facility: VP DOME CAMERA | Product Categories | Hitron Systems, Total Security Solutions

Is there any way to tell if these cameras would be compatible?
 
Potentially stupid question inbound. Could the existing NVR simply be plugged into a new POE switch (behaving like a NVR computer only in this case) and all the existing cameras plugged into the new POE switch as well (to provide them power and create the network connection necessary to operate)?

I don't have a self-contained NVR, so not sure exactly how they work, so not sure if they behave like a regular networked device would. I'm just thinking if that would work, your total cost would be that of a new switch with [# cameras + 1 (ATVideo nvr) + 1 (patch to rest of network) + desired expansion]. Only because you mentioned overall cost as one significant concern. If it would work then a 24 port POE might be a candidate. If some expert here confirms that's an option check out this helpful thread: PoE Switch Suggestion List
 
crw030 said:
Potentially stupid question inbound. Could the existing NVR simply be plugged into a new POE switch (behaving like a NVR computer only in this case) and all the existing cameras plugged into the new POE switch as well (to provide them power and create the network connection necessary to operate)?

I don't have a self-contained NVR, so not sure exactly how they work, so not sure if they behave like a regular networked device would. I'm just thinking if that would work, your total cost would be that of a new switch with [# cameras + 1 (ATVideo nvr) + 1 (patch to rest of network) + desired expansion]. Only because you mentioned overall cost as one significant concern. If it would work then a 24 port POE might be a candidate. If some expert here confirms that's an option check out this helpful thread: PoE Switch Suggestion List
Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion; I need to test it. My two concerns are that 1) The NVR might only talk to cameras over the switch ports and 2) If it will talk to them over its primary LAN port, that would mean the cameras would be reachable by other devices on the same LAN unless I isolate them with some additional network security which would add complexity as well as cost.

I just picked up a used Netgear FS728TP and a GS752TP and I'm planning to use the smaller one at the rescue. I'll test it out this week and see if the NVR will see the cameras over its LAN port
 
I was thinking if it's just the POE part that is broken maybe the "IP CAMERA" ports are still functioning network-wise. In that case the network interface that is currently connected to the larger network stays the same, and one of the "IP CAMERA" ports gets connected to your new POE device.

Not saying it will work, and would still be wise to budget for eventual replacement anyway. But I was hoping a bunch of experts here could confirm whether the NVR Camera Ports behave like a regular network interface or not, absent the POE which is causing you the problems, and whether 1-port on that box will have the network smarts to handle all the traffic from multiple IP cameras via a separate POE switch. I just don't know enough about NVRs, sorry I can't be more help.
 
The PoE functionality is built into the circuit board that the ethernet camera ports are soldered to, and the NVR only functions if that module is completely disconnected, so I don't think there's any way to use the IP camera ports, even with an external switch.

The LAN port for the NVR is separate from the PoE camera ports, though, so that's why I'm hoping that your first suggestion will work, with a switch connected to that port and the cameras run off of that. It will just make security tricky.
 
korin said:
The PoE functionality is built into the circuit board that the ethernet camera ports are soldered to, and the NVR only functions if that module is completely disconnected, so I don't think there's any way to use the IP camera ports, even with an external switch.

The LAN port for the NVR is separate from the PoE camera ports, though, so that's why I'm hoping that your first suggestion will work, with a switch connected to that port and the cameras run off of that. It will just make security tricky.
Click to expand...
You should have the same security concerns with the nvr itself as you have with the cameras...
 
fenderman said:
You should have the same security concerns with the nvr itself as you have with the cameras...
Click to expand...
My concerns are with allowing other devices on the LAN to have network access to the cameras directly. When the cameras are connected to the switch in the NVR, they are isolated from the rest of the LAN and can only be accessed by first logging into the NVR.
 
korin said:
My concerns are with allowing other devices on the LAN to have network access to the cameras directly. When the cameras are connected to the switch in the NVR, they are isolated from the rest of the LAN and can only be accessed by first logging into the NVR.
Click to expand...
I understand your concern but why don't you have the same concern for the NVR itself? It's just as vulnerable.
 
Since the POE board is the same one that provides the IP Camera ports, then you would have to plug the NVR directly into the network, and expose the cameras to the whole network. Potentially a VLAN solution could provide a measure of separation in that case where NVR is assigned as a TRUNK port (access to all VLAN's), IP Camera ports on the switch would be assigned to one VLAN, and all other office PCs would be assigned to a different VLAN.

In the end maybe that option is more headache than it is worth.

If I were you, I would lean toward Blue Iris NVR plus a POE switch for a couple reasons, it just would cost a little more.
  1. if you go Dahua NVR, you have potential compatibility concerns relative to existing cameras
  2. you already seem to know Blue Iris (you say you use it at home)
  3. other users in the office could easily be granted access to the web UI if they need access to certain cameras
  4. fenderman can point directly to a cheap, adequate PC, that won't really cost more in the end
  5. complete/total network separation and security is possible with a 2nd NIC on the Blue Iris machine connected to the POE port for about $25
  6. you are no longer at the mercy of a single point apparatus failure, if hard drive fails you can get another at Best Buy, Power supply etc the same. POE Switch gets zapped replace just that etc.
  7. You are virtually guaranteed IP camera compatibility for both current and future devices
 
  • Like
Reactions: korin
crw030 said:
Since the POE board is the same one that provides the IP Camera ports, then you would have to plug the NVR directly into the network, and expose the cameras to the whole network. Potentially a VLAN solution could provide a measure of separation in that case where NVR is assigned as a TRUNK port (access to all VLAN's), IP Camera ports on the switch would be assigned to one VLAN, and all other office PCs would be assigned to a different VLAN.

In the end maybe that option is more headache than it is worth.

If I were you, I would lean toward Blue Iris NVR plus a POE switch for a couple reasons, it just would cost a little more.
  1. if you go Dahua NVR, you have potential compatibility concerns relative to existing cameras
  2. you already seem to know Blue Iris (you say you use it at home)
  3. other users in the office could easily be granted access to the web UI if they need access to certain cameras
  4. fenderman can point directly to a cheap, adequate PC, that won't really cost more in the end
  5. complete/total network separation and security is possible with a 2nd NIC on the Blue Iris machine connected to the POE port for about $25
  6. you are no longer at the mercy of a single point apparatus failure, if hard drive fails you can get another at Best Buy, Power supply etc the same. POE Switch gets zapped replace just that etc.
  7. You are virtually guaranteed IP camera compatibility for both current and future devices
Click to expand...
the nvr is just as vulnerable as the cameras and must be on its own vlan, therefore it is no more of a headache to use a poe switch with the nvr. However, yes blue iris would be a much better option in terms of usability.
 
fenderman said:
the nvr is just as vulnerable as the cameras and must be on its own vlan, therefore it is no more of a headache to use a poe switch with the nvr. However, yes blue iris would be a much better option in terms of usability.
Click to expand...
But if the NVR is on its own VLAN, how do I access it from my default VLAN for management or monitoring? Wouldn't I need a router that understands VLANs? This is a pretty simple residential-type network with a typical Comcast cable modem/wifi router
 
crw030 said:
Since the POE board is the same one that provides the IP Camera ports, then you would have to plug the NVR directly into the network, and expose the cameras to the whole network. Potentially a VLAN solution could provide a measure of separation in that case where NVR is assigned as a TRUNK port (access to all VLAN's), IP Camera ports on the switch would be assigned to one VLAN, and all other office PCs would be assigned to a different VLAN.
Click to expand...

Thanks @crw030 & @fenderman. I'm going to go the Blue Iris route. Found a cheap used i7 desktop and a $60 FS728TP 24-port PoE smart switch. It sounds like I'll need to throw in a router or firewall that can understand VLANs though. Wouldn't a trunk port just forward all traffic, regardless of the VLAN, but still with the VLAN tag attached? The device on this port still needs to understand VLANs in order to know how to route it and how to tag the return traffic, right?
 
Not a VLAN expert, but my google fu tells me a trunked port would have access to all the VLANs (the reasoning was your main network users need access to NVR and your cameras need to be on another vlan, and you need the NVR to understand both). I can't answer the VLAN tagging question. But as fenderman indicates you are exposing the NVR to all the networks and the vulnerabilities may come back to bite you.

It feels like you are not completely comfortable with VLANs, I had same concerns that I might misconfigure something and expose vulnerable devices. I think you have to commit to VLAN strategy (including a VLAN capable switch and developing your understanding of VLANs and how to properly configure on your selected device) -- OR --
Go the route I went, commit to Blue Iris, buy a PoE switch with enough capacity for planned expansion, add a 2nd NIC for the BI machine, separate the networks completely.

Most the users on this forum are comfortable with the VLAN configuration and will recommend it because it is cheapest and still pretty secure. The dual-LAN design is also valid and simple to configure securely as well. Either solution works, both are more secure than you had before! It just boils down to whether you want to learn how to use VLANs. I'm guessing that 90% of the people on these forums use VLANs and maybe 10% of us use physical separation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankenscript
korin said:
Thanks @crw030 & @fenderman. I'm going to go the Blue Iris route. Found a cheap used i7 desktop and a $60 FS728TP 24-port PoE smart switch. It sounds like I'll need to throw in a router or firewall that can understand VLANs though. Wouldn't a trunk port just forward all traffic, regardless of the VLAN, but still with the VLAN tag attached? The device on this port still needs to understand VLANs in order to know how to route it and how to tag the return traffic, right?
Click to expand...
What was the exact model of the i7?
 
Turns out the PC i got has WiFi, so I'm just gonna connect it to the LAN over that and use the built-in NIC for the camera network. That should keep it super simple and I don't even have to find a second ethernet card!
fenderman said:
What was the exact model of the i7?
Click to expand...
It's a Dell Vostro 470 with i7-3770 @3.40GHz and 8GB RAM
 
Looks like you got lucky! Usually when people buy a BI computer they don’t get QuickSync CPU, but it looks like that one has built-in GPU and supports QuickSync and the H77 chipset should also have onboard graphics support. Main limitations of H77 motherboard seems to be “no overclocking” and “single GPU card support” — neither of which should be an issue for a BI machine.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
crw030 said:
Looks like you got lucky! Usually when people buy a BI computer they don’t get QuickSync CPU, but it looks like that one has built-in GPU and supports QuickSync and the H77 chipset should also have onboard graphics support. Main limitations of H77 motherboard seems to be “no overclocking” and “single GPU card support” — neither of which should be an issue for a BI machine.
Click to expand...

Cool! Sounds like I did get lucky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom