Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR2 performance hell  (Read 11295 times)
marc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2008, 04:57:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Victoria Bampton
'Standard size' is whatever size you set in preferences.  1440 pixels along the longest edge by default.  Having rendered that, the on-the-fly rendering to the different thumbnail sizes is much quicker.

I must be doing something wrong.. I've selected all images and rendered standard size preview to all of them, but they all still show pixelated when I scroll around. When I stop scrolling it takes about 5 seconds for the thumbnails to be rendered sharp and detailed in the library window. I can't tell any difference from before I rendered the previews at all..
Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2008, 12:50:55 AM »
ReplyReply

OK—I completely uninstalled LR 2.1 on the MacBook Pro and re-installed it. I removed every possible file, including the registration files. Even opening a blank, new catalog and switching between the grid and develop for the first time still takes 6 seconds...WITH NO PHOTOS IN THE CATALOG. After the first time of loading each module, it seems to switch much faster between modules.

I opened LR 2.1 in my office on the 24" Intel iMac. I noticed something that I'll bet is a bad omen. Upon launch the "Silvertone" splash screen comes up. I don't think I noticed this before, but it distinctly said Silvertone in a sort of Fender guitar font, NOT Lightroom. I ran the 2.0 beta on this machine some time ago, but can't think of why it would still be there and being accessed. I will do the full-on uninstall tomorrow and report back. Could it be so hard for Adobe to write in an uninstall script in their installer?

***LATER*** You can toggle the LR and Silvertone splash screens by pressing R. Don't know why, but the LR team are being cute.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2008, 12:58:27 AM by Pindy » Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6727


« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2008, 02:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pindy
OK—I completely uninstalled LR 2.1 on the MacBook Pro and re-installed it. I removed every possible file, including the registration files. Even opening a blank, new catalog and switching between the grid and develop for the first time still takes 6 seconds...WITH NO PHOTOS IN THE CATALOG. After the first time of loading each module, it seems to switch much faster between modules.
On my dual 2GHz G5 Mac, switching for the first time between the library module and the develop module takes approx. 3-4 seconds. That's with my current library with more than 10000 1Ds Mark 3 raw files.

Removing leftovers from the beta and reinstalling a clean Lightroom certainly won't hurt.
Logged

Francois
marc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2008, 11:59:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Switching from Library to Develop module the first time (on loading) also takes about 5 seconds on my fairly modest dual core pc. After that switching between the modules is basically instant though (although with a little background loading that doesn't really interfere). I don't really have speed issues other than the slow rendering of pictures in library view that I mentioned earlier. Just thought I'd add some perspective - Lightroom should feel fairly quick on a basic computer.

This is a huge change from when I tried Lightroom 1.1 or so, it was so slow it felt like it was running on a Commodore 64.. with a tape recorder.

Logged
terence_patrick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2008, 04:41:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I've got a G5 dual 2.3 with 6.5gb in RAM and was having issues with LR2.1rc but have recently noticed that it's been running smoother since 2.1. I moved my catalog of 48,966 images made up of Canon 5D and scanned 6x7 TIFFs to an external eSATA hard drive that's empty, increased the cache to 60gb, and for good measure, created a new user account on my machine that's used strictly for editing/retouching. I even disabled internet access for that user (that's more of a productivity thing), just to make sure the system didn't get junked up with anything else. So far, so good. The program is running smoother than before and I keep auto XMP write ON.
Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2009, 12:34:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: terence_patrick
I've got a G5 dual 2.3 with 6.5gb in RAM and was having issues with LR2.1rc but have recently noticed that it's been running smoother since 2.1. I moved my catalog of 48,966 images made up of Canon 5D and scanned 6x7 TIFFs to an external eSATA hard drive that's empty, increased the cache to 60gb, and for good measure, created a new user account on my machine that's used strictly for editing/retouching. I even disabled internet access for that user (that's more of a productivity thing), just to make sure the system didn't get junked up with anything else. So far, so good. The program is running smoother than before and I keep auto XMP write ON.

That's not a bad idea.
Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2009, 12:37:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry to resurrect this thread.

The evidence of MacBook dual 2.16, OS 10.5.6, 2GB RAM hell:




This was captured about 4 minutes after having exported a single JPEG and the computer was otherwise idle. Note that LR2 was referred to by the Activity Monitor as "(null)". The range of CPU percentage was from 105% to 190%, mostly in the upper 30 percent.

I recently uninstalled LR2.2 in an effort to get rid of any lingering LR1 or LR2 beta crud. I freshly installed LR2.2 but so far, I'm seeing no change. What on earth is LR doing?

I have thought of completely rebuilding the OS on the MBP and "starting over" despite the hell that that implies. Even though the activity monitor doesn't show any other offenders, I can't help but think there's too much junk in my Library and System folders. The only thing I have left to try before that is changing the type of drive. The catalog (and photos) are on a LaCie Rugged
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 12:39:41 PM by Pindy » Logged
allenlux
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2009, 01:34:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Pindy
The catalog (and photos) are on a LaCie Rugged
I haven't been following this thread but I do have an interest as I've just upgraded to from 1.4 to 2.2 (on 32-bit Windows).

I couldn't help but wonder - is your LaCie Rugged drive an external USB drive? Does this maybe have something to do with your problem? Access and transfer speeds for a USB drive are way slower than for a normal system-attached hard drive, or an eSATA drive.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 03:45:12 PM by allenlux » Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2009, 05:38:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I shall up it to 3GB today—the max. Funny, 2GB was the max when I bought it, but progress marches on I should think. Thanks for the tip.
Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2009, 01:01:17 AM »
ReplyReply

CRAP—I only have the Core Duo, not the Core 2 Duo, therefore, I'm stuck at 2GB. I even bought some and tried it. Wouldn't boot. Have to figure something else out for now.
Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2009, 01:02:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: allenlux
I haven't been following this thread but I do have an interest as I've just upgraded to from 1.4 to 2.2 (on 32-bit Windows).

I couldn't help but wonder - is your LaCie Rugged drive an external USB drive? Does this maybe have something to do with your problem? Access and transfer speeds for a USB drive are way slower than for a normal system-attached hard drive, or an eSATA drive.

Mine has FW800 ports on it and I use those or the 400 ports depending on the computer. I should find a 7200 FW portable. The portable thing is kind of important.
Logged
Tam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2009, 06:50:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that your problem is so much the amount of RAM you have installed as the way that Lr uses it. v 2.2 is a disaster for many. Many are dropping back to v 2.1 while they wait (and wait) for a fix. See the U2U forum on adobe.com.
Logged
Pindy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2009, 09:34:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tam
I don't think that your problem is so much the amount of RAM you have installed as the way that Lr uses it. v 2.2 is a disaster for many. Many are dropping back to v 2.1 while they wait (and wait) for a fix. See the U2U forum on adobe.com.

Thank you, but once again, same performance 2.0b, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2. I cannot increase my RAM past 2GB. Regressing isn't going to help. I don't doubt that 2.2 is trouble for some, but as usual the stock answer doesn't apply to me. This is a 2.x thing for me. Maybe I should just upgrade the laptop and be done with it.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad