它是更好地直接连接到IP摄像机或通过服务器流视频？ [英] Is it better to connect directly to an IP camera or stream the video through a server?
问题描述
我们有一个IP摄像机，我们有兴趣在观看流每天12小时100人。
如果我们让人们直接连接到相机然后在该位置的带宽被锤击，则IP相机具有要真正范围的顶部和视频质量下降。
如果我们通过服务器流视频却仿佛成本成了天价，每用户越来越多。
什么利弊，什么是最好的建议，以最实惠的方式设计这个系统？
更新：目前所有的流媒体直播服务，我可以找到正在使用单播。单播，每个用户得到他们自己的流意味着你的带宽成本每用户增加。如果你正在串流全天候（例如，使用亚马逊的CloudFront的）这是令人难以置信的昂贵。 （在我的情况下，我们会被分流，每天12小时，每周5天，一年四季但尽管如此，单播带宽成本使其不可行）
我需要的是一个多播服务存在于云中，但我无法找到一个。思科似乎已经买了一个公司，做了什么，我在寻找，但现在你需要给他们打电话询问，所以我presume它的成本一只胳膊和一条腿。
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/产品/ ps6552 / products_ios_technology_home.html
如何将每个用户的成本增加？
在我看来，这是更好地与服务器流视频，原因如下：
赞成
- 最有可能的，服务器就会少带限比IP摄像机本身。
- 可扩展性：服务器将能更好地处理负载比IP摄像头和$ P $的大量psents的轻松扩展您的服务作为请求增加选项
- 总体服务质量比较好。你准备好为未来的任何时候。
- 成本进行了优化。如果你主持你的云服务 - 你付出你用什么。而你得到的回报是什么是可靠性。
- 肯定更灵活，您可能希望开发其他的价值在此之上增值服务 - 没有人知道明天
CONS
- 显得更加昂贵 - 但真的就是这样，如果你关心质量
- 无法想到了缺点。也许行政成本？不知道全貌...
我写在这里，因为注释部分将使其难以阅读：
所以在这里我们去...
我同意PlanetStream是昂贵的。在800kbps 720分钟的速度流（12小时 - 1天）花费£250.00 - ！可笑
有关100位观众，并与上面给出的参数，你得到的是411.987 GB /天。
这相当于每GB 0.6068£。或0.9811 $每GB。
我强烈建议你看看亚马逊的CloudFront的的的定价：每GB 0.120 $第一个前10 TB /月。房价越来越便宜，甚至当你消耗更多的。
**最后，通过我的计算相比，行星流的£250.00每天由Amazon CloudFront的（如果我还没有做出任何地方的错误），你付出每天仅30.58£。
We have an IP camera, we have 100 people interested in watching the stream 12 hours per day.
If we allow people to connect directly to the camera then the bandwidth at that location is hammered, the IP camera has to be really top of the range and the video quality degrades.
If we stream the video through a server it seems as though the costs become astronomical, increasing per user.
What are the pros and cons and what's the best recommendations for designing this system in the most affordable way?
UPDATE: Currently all live streaming services I can find are using Unicast. With Unicast, each user gets their own stream meaning your bandwidth costs increase per user. This is incredibly expensive if you're streaming 24x7x365 (using e.g. Amazon CloudFront). (In my case we'd be streaming 12 hours per day, 5 days per week, all year round but still, the Unicast bandwidth costs make it unworkable)
What I need is a Multicast service that exists in the cloud but I cannot find one. Cisco seem to have bought a company that did what I'm looking for but now you need to call them to enquire, so I presume it costs an arm and a leg.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6552/products_ios_technology_home.html
How would the cost increase per user?
In my opinion, it's better to stream the video with a server, for the following reasons:
PROS
- Most likely, the server will be LESS band-limited than the IP camera itself.
- Scalability: the server will be better equipped to handle a larger number of load than the IP camera and presents the option of easily scaling your service as the request increases.
- Overall QoS is better. And you're ready for the future anytime.
- Cost is optimised. If you're hosting your service on the cloud - you pay for what you use. And what you get in return is reliability.
- Definitely more flexible, you may want to develop other value added service on top of this - no one knows tomorrow.
CONS
- Appears to be more expensive - but really is it, if you care for quality?
- Can't think of anymore disadvantages. Maybe administration cost? Don't know the whole picture...
I'm writing here because the comment section will make it difficult to read:
So here we go...
I agree that PlanetStream is expensive. Streaming at the rate of 800kbps for 720 minutes (12 hours - 1 day) costs £250.00 - ridiculous!
For 100 viewers and with the parameters given above, what you get is 411.987 GB/day.
That amounts to £0.6068 per GB. Or $0.9811 per GB.
I strongly suggest that you have a look at Amazon CloudFront's pricing: $0.120 per GB for the first First 10 TB / month. The rate gets cheaper even when you consume more.
**Finally, by my calculations (if I haven't made a mistake anywhere) you pay only £30.58 per day by Amazon CloudFront compared to Planet Stream's £250.00 per day.
这篇关于它是更好地直接连接到IP摄像机或通过服务器流视频？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
