Not sure, but considering the CISCO box is a much more powerful box and has amazing functions, we are surprised that the Swap function is so poorly designed. then Swap back to Tuner 1 and pick up where you left off. What should happen with Swap is that Tuner 1 stays put on the channel you were watching, and Tuner 2 you can channel surf, etc. I am not a programmer, so I took this to mean that if the DVR function for EACH tuner is not always on or engaged somehow, like actually recording something, the Live TV functionality (pause, scroll back, etc.) is only working on the channel you are watching. I had read on line that a possible solution was to have the hard drive for the CISCO box be configured as "always on" (which is not the default). It appears the two tuners built into the box do not run independent of each other. See this description for the Motorola box With the Swap function on the new CISCO boxes, it more or less acts like a "Last Channel" function, it takes you to the last channel you were watching. With our prior Motorola DVR boxes, each box had 2 tuners that ran independent of the other, so when nothing was recording, you can watch something on one channel (call that Tuner 1), swap, then browse the channels on Tuner 2, and then swap back to the original programming on Tuner 1 (which is a very cool feature!!!). We are having difficulty with the "Swap" function. We just switched to the whole house DVR by adding 3 base CISCO Explorer 8642HDC boxes (no "clients"). Same stuff still goes on at various levels but as far as PoE goes with the gear we have, it's solid.Would love help with the Swap function! Asked my cable company and got nothing helpful, here's the question: Standards are open to interpretation and get implementated in slightly different ways resulting in interoperability issues at times. In concept I guess you could say something like this is related. I haven't seen issues like that in almost a decade. I remember the days where Brand X NIC didn't play nice with Brand Y switch for speed/duplex negiotation but that was a long time ago and certainly not just Cisco specific. It is very rare for us to have any PoE issues with any of this gear. I don't even remember all the details, It's been a little while and unfortunately we didn't have much time to spend on it. Just used injectors for the time being until we could get back to it and investigate indepth. We have had it on multiple 802.3at compliant switches (30W max) but they did not negoiate and the camera never powers. That was with an Axis P5534 if I recall correctly. A few years ago, the idea of cloud-based digital video recording (DVR) was an aspiration. with one exception that we haven't gotten back to, to investigate. Cloud DVR transforms video servicesfor operators as much as their subscribers. Not sure if anyone out there can shed light on this issue. This happened on Stardot, Arecont, Vivotek and Axis cameras/encoders, all exibiting the same behavior. Putting external PoE injectors gets the cameras linked back up but defeats the purpose and function of high end expensive networking equipment. Cisco is telling us that these cameras manufacturers are not follwing tru PoE standards with their Class assignments meaning that the camera is asking for one wattage and actually needing another. After installing the new switches we had many cameras from all brands either fail to PoE power or even less commonly, pull PoE power but no link. This install had all IP cameras from 3-4 brands powered and working perfectly thru the ESW switches. Well since, then on an existing install, we did a network upgrade changign all ESW series untis out for new 29 series units. We resolved it by moving all cameras off PoE and back to 12/24 rack mount power. We struggled with Cisco and Arecont back and forth, each blaming the other company's product. This happen with Arecont cameras, 3 differnt models both Bullet syel and Megadome. Sounds like a power issue but we are way under the max PoE power consumption for those swicthes. A power cycle of the switch would then power up other cameras and then not ones previuously powered. Sometimes they would work, sometimes not. We first noticed on a new installation the some cameras were having trouble negotiating PoE power. Recently on several projects we have starting using the 2960 series. We have very many installations using the lower end ESW Series and have had no issue whatsover in using any brand of IP camera powered via PoE. I thought I would put this out there and see if anyone has experienced similar issues with using the 3500 or 2960 series of Cisco network switches.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |