Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Forum for questions and support relating to the 1.34.x releases only.
Post Reply
valid-user
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:09 pm

Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by valid-user »

I am using ZM 1.34 as found in the Devuan (Debian clone) repo. That means I had to update to the Devuan 'chimaera' release, basically Debian 'bullseye'. That meant a Linux kernel jump from 4.16.x or 4.19.x to 5.10.x.

I have not noticed any issues running Linux 5.10 on a Supermicro 2558 and 2758 boards with 16 GB of RAM.

After debugging the "upgrade" from Devuan 'ascii' to Devuan 'chimaera' (issues with deprecated "shorewall" features) I then focused on the ZM issues. Since a jump of 2 major releases is technically not supported in Debian or Devuan you jump to the intermediate level, Devuan 'beowulf', equivalent to Debian 'buster'. That meant ZM was borked because Devuan does not have ZM in the 'beowulf' repos. Once 'chimaera' is installed you can reinstall ZM, but then "zmupdate.pl" is borked by a missing call to update 'zm.*' database permissions. Once the database permissions are fixed and apache is told to enable 'zoneminder', then ZM works again.

Or does it?

From what I can tell the ZM web GUI may need some tuning. Whatever it is doing it is causing clients to seemingly crawl when displaying something as simple as a montage. I thought it was my PC, but 8 cores at 3.2 GHz with 16GB of RAM and barely any load said, "Nope, not here."

So I looked at my dedicated ZM server; no GUI on it, completely "headless". Via the ZM web GUI it reports Load is less than 3 and "shm" is less than 40 percent. Looking at "htop" in Linux via SSH shows all 8 cores are working and almost 4GB of RAM is used out of 16GB.

Networking is not an issue. The cameras are physically separate from the rest of the house; only the ZM server directly sees them over a dedicated GB port and 1 Ethernet switch. The house is all GB networking, unchanged, quite reliable, and other household video streaming applications are working perfectly.

So it does not appear to be a physical resource issue. It looks more like an application tuning issue. [snark]Or has PHP gotten that bad?[/snark]

So why do the "Cycle", "Montage", and "Montage Review" features cause my web browser to turn sluggish at times? Could it be the new fancy ZM web GUI? Why can't we have a simple URL to the actual "Cycle" or "Montage" group that avoids using the web GUI entirely, like in ZM 1.30+dfsg? Yes, I have entered a feature request asking just that question.

Or are there strange problems running ZM 1.34 on Linux 5.10? The hardware is all unchanged and still supported. Process of elimination troubleshooting points to software, something than needs to be tuned, but what? Yes I have gone through all of the ZM options menus.

Honestly, this upgrade was a letdown in terms of performance, like trading in a Ferrari for a YUGO. If you know cars (I have worked on both and many others), then you will understand my analogy.

ZM 1.30+dfsg on Devuan 'ascii' was "rock solid" and a "real go-er", but I upgraded because Devuan 'ascii' is now "oldstable" and not getting much of anything in terms of upgrades. Sooner or later I had to do this upgrade if I did not want my ZM server to be a functioning museum piece.

:?
User avatar
burger
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon May 11, 2020 4:32 pm

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by burger »

Debian/Devuan install instructions are at https://wiki.zoneminder.com/Debian.

Chimaera is not released yet. 1.34 works fine on Beowulf using the zm repo. Have not noticed any significant slowdown. "Works on my machine"
fastest way to test streams:
ffmpeg -i rtsp://<user>:<pass>@<ipaddress>:554/path ./output.mp4 (if terminal only)
ffplay rtsp://<user>:<pass>@<ipaddress>:554/path (gui)
find paths on ispydb or in zm hcl

If you are new to security software, read:
https://wiki.zoneminder.com/Dummies_Guide
valid-user
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 10:09 pm

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by valid-user »

I posted 2 posts with performance pictures for your consideration. 2 posts due to max of 3 attachments per post.

Post 1 of 2: viewtopic.php?f=40&p=121532#p121532

Post 2 of 2: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=30778

I doubt the issues are with Linux; my "before & after" graphs do not suggest that.

My pre-upgrade viewing platforms could not handle the upgraded web UI, so those had to be upgraded; previous web UI was "light on viewing system resources".

Do you collect performance graphs from your system? Can you post them?
User avatar
Acewiza
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:52 pm

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by Acewiza »

ZM as written, is a total resource hog. I elicited some hint about old video code as a potential suspect on that thread, and your experience seems to support that notion. It just doesn't work well with montage - on a Ryzen 7/27 with 32gig. Go figure.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=30708&p=121327#p121327
alabamatoy
Posts: 349
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 2:53 pm

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by alabamatoy »

Acewiza wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:30 pm ZM as written, is a total resource hog.
I just dont see that in my experience. I have 3 current systems running, and a 4th that I recently shutdown. I really havent had resource problems with any of them. One of them (Ubuntu 16.04) ran 3 cameras recording constantly while I would log into it using the default desktop and open a browser and run Pandora and do other stuff on the browser, all with no real issues. Its an Intel I3 with 16GB of RAM.

I think that first of all, motion detection is a bust, essentially a waste of time and effort because its only effective in certain instances, like very consistent lighting indoors.

Second, you need to carefully configure /dev/shm If its running over 50% you are going to have issues. I have run it as high as consistent 92% and problems ensue, but its still largely reliable.

Third, set the cameras (not ZM) to run at something like 10FPS, unless you truly need NFL-grade stop-motion playback. Most dont for security purposes.

The latest version I have running (1.35.27) seem very solid and has dramatically reduced the /dev/shm consumption.
User avatar
Andyrh
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 3:55 am

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by Andyrh »

Mileage varies, I have a gen 2 i7 (ubuntu server 18.04) running at less than 50% CPU with 5 cameras all modect and all outside. I have a reasonable number of false alarms except for bugs. (I have lots of close up bug flight video) I do use a lower frame rate, 10 or 8 FPS depending on the MP of the camera.
The only issue I have with montage is if I leave it to long I cannot exit, I have to close the tab. It does use plenty of the network bandwidth, but does not really affect my Windows PC (Gen4 i7)
Andy
o||||o

Ubuntu 22.04
ZM 1.36.33
E5-1650-v4 Xeon
16 GB RAM
6 cameras -> 54 FPS modect
User avatar
Acewiza
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:52 pm

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by Acewiza »

alabamatoy wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:45 pm I just dont see that in my experience.
I bet you're one of those people who looks around at the horizon and thinks to himself "yep, the earth sure is flat."
User avatar
iconnor
Posts: 2880
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:43 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feedback - Poor Performance Using 1.34

Post by iconnor »

I find that comment unacceptable.

Watch yourself. Your experience is the anecdotal one. alabamatoy's experience is the norm. And he has been around here a lot longer and been a lot more helpful to everyone than you.

We run ZM succcessfully on everything from raspberry pi's to server clusters with 800 cameras. Each presents issues that can and have been overcome.
Post Reply