Arlo|Smart Home Security|Wireless HD Security Cameras|NETGEAR
Top Contributors

Minimize lag by saving to USB drive first

I know I've seen a lot of complaints about lag.  From what I see most of the lag is caused by the camera waiting for the network to be able to upload to the cloud.  The mechanical part of the sensor being tripped and the lens opening is a second or less but if there is any network congestion or hiccup of any kind you camera can't record to the cloud.  

Make it so I can buy a USB drive put it in the back of the base when a camera activates it records directly to the flash drive, once the recording is complete then it uploads to the cloud, but the actual recording is immediate, no waiting for the Internet.  This simple solution would change how fast our cameras record

25 Comments
Novice

--> Potential problem: Internet connection and/or power outage leads to loss of video material showing an event.

Power outage is probably not a primary concern but my internet connection occasionally breaks down for 5 or 10 minutes. This has something to do with my provider. It would be unfortunate if a burglary took place during such a breakdown.

--> Possible solution: Use local storage as video buffer.

I assume the lack of local storage functionality has something to do with netgear's business model. They could however give the system the ability to locally buffer the videos in an encrypted format. While this would not allow the user to view the locally stored videos it would still make the system more resilient. If the internet connection breaks down the videos could be stored locally e.g. on a flash drive connected to the base station's usb port, a lap top or on an old smartphone hidden away somewhere in the house that runs the arlo app. Once the internet connection is restored the encrypted files are uploaded. It is unlikely that a burgler finds the base station within the first 5 or 10 minutes and destroys the buffered video. Using an old smartphone as buffer would also protect against power outages since the cameras use batteries and so does the smartphone. They could send their video material to the smarthphone if the base station and the router do not have power. Of course the smarthphone would have to provide an wireless network that the cameras could detect and use instead of the one the base station and/or the local router provides, the latter two would not be accessible during a power outage. Once power is restored the encrypted videos could be uploaded from the smartphone to the cloud. If the base station and/or cameras are stolen the user could manually upload the encrypted files to netgear and then watch them via his/her cloud-account.

Since the network a smarphone can provide is quite limited regarding range, the cameras could be used as relay-stations (I guess, that's not possible but something to think about when designing the next generation).

Guide
I wish to make the same recommendation of using one of Arlo's base station USB ports as a video buffer, but for a different reason. My internet connection is very stable (I rarely have disconnections), but my upload speed is only about 0.87-0.89 Mbps (i.e. less than the recommended minimum of 1 Mbps). This gives me reasonable quality for 1 camera, but when a second camera is activated while the first is still recording, the video quality suffers quite badly. I would like to buy additional cameras, but my upload speed is a limiting factor. The problem could be solved if a flash drive could be used as a buffer to allow time for good quality video to be uploaded to the cloud even when the internet upload speed is less than optimum. I think this would be a significant issue for many users in Australia, because I believe that the majority of Australian home internet connections currently use ADSL2, which invariably means that the upload speeds are well under the recommended minimum of 1 Mbps.
Apprentice
I agree that netgears business model relies on the uploading of video to the cloud, so sowls suggestion of having the base encrypt the video so we can't view directly from the usb is fine, just have the base store/buffer the clips to the drive then upload them, and even delete them after upload is confirmed, this would also greatly help ppl with slow internet/ unstable internet connections
Onlooker

Completely agree! Please activate local USB storage - even if it's temporary, the lag is really, really sad.

Initiate

Anything to make this system more than just a gimmick. It would certainly be something Netgear could promote as opposed to providing work arounds that do not solve the detection issue. I am sadly going to return this system. Not looking forward to stringing cable but this is just not a trustworthy security solution as it stands.

Apprentice
I don't think the system is a gimmick, I enjoy it and it works well when there isn't lag, cause sometimes the 2-3 seconds it misses are the most important ones. I don't believe this would cost netgear a dime besides writing the update if they did it the way suggested by having the base store the videos locally till all are finished then once the videos are recorded the base can then upload them with no worries of waiting for the network or server to be ready to accept it, once everything is ready to send it uploads from the USB drive with no loss
Aspirant

If I at least knew that Netgear was considering a firmware/software upgrade to allow local storage in order to overcome the lag and missed video - or whatever it takes to fix that - I might consider keeping this Arlo system. Otherwise, sadly, it will likely be going back to the store. 

Onlooker

I honeslty love the concept and the design of hte Arlo system, but after four weeks of screwing around with the system and all of the false notifications and the horrible motion detection algrorithims and the delayed startup causing the camera to miss recording, it went back to the store. 

 

I ate through two sets of batteries in 3 cameras in 4 weeks.

 

I tried to alter the design of the system by following the instructions in another thread on this forum to create a PVC shield for the motion detection. 

 

I tried, truly tried to love this system. 

 

It's just too unreliable. 

 

I ended up running ethernet cable through my attic, and purchased an Amcrest camera NVR systme that runs via power over ethernet.

 

I LOVE the system, can access it remotely - motion detection works excellent, it's super clear in the daytime, the nightvision extends all the way down my driveway and into the street, the DVR is continually recording (7 day storage on the 3TB hard drive) and will send me push notifications or e-Mail notifications if motion is detected. It even supports motion detection frame masking, so I can tell the system where to alert me if motion is detected. 

 

Here's the bottom line guys:

________

 

If you want a system to monitor your dog, or your baby, or your elderly parents - sure, Arlo might be for you.

 

If you want a system to protect your property and family - Arlo isn't the right system for you. It's simply too unreliable. 

Apprentice
I now have to agree, As far a security this is not the ideal system. I have taken mine all down and spent a day running cables for my new wired dvr system, which is up and running beautifully
Novice
Completely agree. Buffering locally will provide an excellent level of fault tolerance to the system as well as making the system 3-5 times faster. Seriously, this is the logical next step for this system, it will elevate it's usefulness exponentially.