![]() It will always auto-start - non issueĪssign BI's storage path to whatever drives you prefer - non issue On your CPU usage comparison bear in mind if you are running the BI demo license the CPU usage is much higher than the paid version as you cannot use the "direct to disk" encoding, so the streams need to be transcoded. I would also say the native BI web client and the IOS app are both way more capable than SS (but I haven't looked at the new versions). So I have no need for anything more than BI does in that regard. No AI in the motion detection but it is hugely tunable and very effective to reduce false positives, mask zones etc. I have no axe to grind but would say if you can stomach the windows box or VM, BI is extremely capable and the functionality in Glenn's plugin is excellent and growing. ![]() It runs really well headless with Teamviewer on it and has been rock solid. I have no experience running it on a VM, but on a dedicated Dell Optiplex i7 ex corporate from eBay with an SSD for Windows and BI and a big video drive. I took a look at SS but the big jump in price ruled it out for me for the 16 cameras. This setup would have been quite hard to replicate with SS. My wife now loves the setup as she can just glance at the monitors in different rooms. It also allows me to have several monitors directly connected to it greatly simplifying viewing. Also having a separate and dedicated box ends up using way less power in my setup. It works with Indigo, and the Mac and iOs interfaces are very good (replays and scrubbing are almost instantaneous). I would recommend SS over BI.īTW, I'm very happy with my decision to go to a dedicated NVR. From the forums here its seems like a lot of people are running SS with no issues. I would not run anything HA related in a virtualized environment together with non virtualized. Other then the fact it was using a lot of resources and sometimes cameras didn't re-connect after an outage. SS was working well for me and I had no major problems with it. I haven't run BI before but had SS for quite a while before switching to Hikvision NVR. I don't see anything like those in BI, but maybe I just missed them. Major functionality differences between SS and BI? SS5 has H.265 and the new AI driven motion detection. How does the functionality of the BI plugin compare to the SS plugin? How hard is it to get BI in a VM to auto-start properly and to use the physical drives for storage? How hard is it to get the web server working properly in the VM? So I'm wondering what the basis was for that characterization? But I have not had any usability issues with SS. Nor have I tried using the BlueIris plugin yet.Īt least one BI user called SS "expensive garbage" in a thread in this forum. And I haven't played with the web interface to BI yet. I don't want them stored in a virtual drive in the VM. What I have not tried to do yet is configure BI to write the video files directly to one of the Mac Pro's drives. CPU usage of the VM is slightly more than SS. I installed BI in a Fusion VM on the same system, and configured it with the same eight cameras. It runs between 300-400% CPU for my eight cameras. I currently run SS on an upgraded 2010 Mac Pro (12 core, 40 GB RAM). The BI license is good for more cameras than I could ever use. But if I want to add any more cameras, It's a couple hundred more for an SS 16 camera license. It's about $100 for the SS5 upgrade for my 8 camera license. And if I go BI, I'll need another Parallels or Fusion license too. SS has served me well, but with the SS5 release I need to decide whether to pay the upgrade fee or pay for a BI license instead. I'm trying to decide whether to stick with Security Spy or switch to Blue Iris. Hoping this doesn't turn into a Ford vs Chevy discussion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |