Why isn't this project more popular?

[PawelTroka]

Seems like a great idea to have zero-bullshit, easy to use, free and open-source NVR software.

[hpaolini]

I'm not sure. I feel that it might be too simple of a solution. Personally, I've been running it for years and it has been working great on low-end systems.

But then, I suck at marketing so this might be the real reason it's not popular...

[vsisl]

Hi @hpaolini,

I just came across your repo while searching for a light-weight solution for continuous recording of IP camera RTSP streams.

My intention is to use MotionEye as the main control system for my cameras. However, MotionEye has one big limitation - it cannot do both continuous recording and motion detection at the same time. I want to do both at the same time so I decided to use MotionEye to do motion detection and to find another solution for continuous recording. This brought me to your repo.

My questions are:

1. Do you think tiny-nvr is suitable for this use case?
2. Would tiny-nvr docker container run on Raspberry Pi 4? Docker Hub says it's amd64 only. Would there be a (simple) way to modify the image to run on armhf?

Thanks for your answer and the effort you put into this project! :)

[hpaolini]

Hi @vsisl

1. If you're recording on the LAN and have enough bandwidth, then you're fine. There are no conflicting dependencies between tiny-nvr and MotionEye.

2. Yes? Docker should be able to pull the right image based on the host's platform, IIRC. But do you really need, though? I don't have a Pi4 to test it on, but the previous revisions could barely keep up with 2/3 cameras--so, I don't think you want to waste resources running it through Docker (see hpaolini/nvr-scripts). If you go the Pi-route, make sure to save the recordings on a mounted drive, otherwise the SD-card will end up corrupted very quickly.