Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR3 much slower than LR2 and even Beta!?  (Read 17591 times)
photopianeil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2010, 09:56:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I was having problems with my Mac Pro w/ an SSD sys disk and 12GB of RAM.  I had converted my LR2 catalog, but after purging my cache and putting it on the SSD, I created a new catalog in LR3 and for a 25,000 image database.  I rarely see it use more than 4 GB of memory and it rarely even slows down.
Neil
Logged
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2010, 05:54:58 PM »
ReplyReply

After I read through these replies and comments I decided to try something. I have a Windows 7 64bit machine with 8GB memory. I disabled the swap file, rebooted and the performance increase in extraordinary (at least for me) So I'd be interested in what others findings are.

HTH,

James
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2010, 03:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: James DeMoss
After I read through these replies and comments I decided to try something. I have a Windows 7 64bit machine with 8GB memory. I disabled the swap file, rebooted and the performance increase in extraordinary (at least for me) So I'd be interested in what others findings are.

Well, disabling the Win 7 swap file did not improve things for me. No difference either way. Pondering this issue further, with the admittedly small amount of LR3 experience I have so far, the situation seems so confused and contradictory I am not surprised that the Adobe gurus here are keeping quiet about it at present. But there is no doubt that some people (including me) are experiencing serious peformance and stability isues with LR 3.0. Given the vast range of potential hardware/OS/platform combinations there are out there, this is not altogether surprising, perhaps. Some ideas of mine to chuck onto the table -

* LR3 and ACR 6.1 use the same underlying process engine and code. And ACR users are reporting the same sort of problems -

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=43622&st=0

Some ACR users are suggesting that the only way around the problem is to apply lens corrections as the very last step in the editing process.

* The LR3 betas ran fine (perhaps a little more sluggish than 2.7). The only radically new piece of code in the LR3 release is the lens and perspective corrections, which were not publically beta tested (but presumably alpha tested). The nasty things on my PC only seem to happen when the lens correction panel is in use. One interesting indicator of this is that the CA correction is now brain-dead on my PC, not responding instantly to the slider, even with nothing else turned on. In 2.7 this was always real-time interactive.

* I have recently upgraded my PC hardware (laptops). The previous machine was really poorly specified by present standards - old core2 duo processor, only 1.5GB RAM, slow and small HD, and Win XP SP2. But it was still perfectly quick enough and stable with my Hassy 39MP files and running LR 2.6. It also ran the LR3 betas just fine. My new laptop is not by any means state of the art, but is pretty typical of the average box these days - Win 7 64 bit, 2.1 Ghz dual-core, 4GB RAM, 500MB HD which is twice as quick as the previous one. Everything else except LR is blazingly fast on this new machine compared with the old one - but LR3 is a dog.

* Why are some people reporting no performance issues, across both the Mac and Windows platforms, whereas other people are? Is it that they do not use lens or perspective corrections? Are they applying lens corrections last in the process flow? Are they processing much smaller RAW files than me? (MF 39MP Hasselblad files).

This is just my opinion, but I do not think that adding SSDs, splitting the cache and catalog over separate drives etc etc is really dealing with the problem. All it is probably doing is masking it. I reckon there is something pretty radically wrong with the code optimisation in LR3 - especially when you consider that something as huge and complex as CS5 runs happily on a vast range of hardware.

Unfortunately, those who really know something about all this will be unable to comment. But I would expect a 3.1 or 3.2 to be quite a radical upgrade. In the meantime, quite a few of us are acting as beta testers, and paying for the privilege  

John
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 05:54:14 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2010, 03:33:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I did some more testing last night. Fairly obviously, RAW file size should be a factor in all this. The only alternative RAWs I have are very small, from my old Panasonic LC1 at 5MP each. So I resurrected a few of those, picked one at random, loaded it into LR3 and did all the stuff I normally do - perspective correction, rotate and crop, basic edits and levels, grads, local brush adjustments, spot removal. And LR3 ran as smooth as silk throughout, no slow-downs, hangs or glitches at all. Every action was real-time and instantaneous. I kept an eye on memory usage, and it never got above 2GB.

So this might explain why some users are perfectly happy with LR3 and others are tearing their hair out. Probably, for every particular PC/Mac hardware setup, there is a RAW file size above which you will experience problems, and below which you will be absolutely fine. This RAW size hinge point might be 12MP on one machine, and 20MP on another, depending on your hardware. So some users on some machines with relatively small files will see no issues at all.

With LR 2.6 and 2.7 even my 39MP files ran just fine. On the same PC, LR3 is pretty much unusable if I activate the Lens Correction panel - even if I don't, multiple brush edits will slow it down very noticeably, which did not happen with 2.x

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6310


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2010, 05:43:19 AM »
ReplyReply

UPDATE: looks like Adobe team found the bug in LR3 that's making it so slow. Fix is supposed to be coming soon.. More here, on Adobe forums.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2010, 10:26:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
UPDATE: looks like Adobe team found the bug in LR3 that's making it so slow. Fix is supposed to be coming soon.. More here, on Adobe forums.

From Dan Tull:
"We just confirmed a fix for a mistake in the way cached previews were being accounted for internally. Previews are used pretty extensively throughout the app, but the most glaring place that one would show up was during sustained rapid advances through Library loupe on a large monitor."

Interesting... I am using two 30",  so maybe that explains some of the LR3 odd behavior that I am seeing.

Steve
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 810


« Reply #46 on: August 07, 2010, 05:13:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: vandevanterSH
From Dan Tull:
"We just confirmed a fix for a mistake in the way cached previews were being accounted for internally. Previews are used pretty extensively throughout the app, but the most glaring place that one would show up was during sustained rapid advances through Library loupe on a large monitor."

Interesting... I am using two 30",  so maybe that explains some of the LR3 odd behavior that I am seeing.

Steve

Awesome news! That's exactly when I would experience the problem, during rapid scrolling and tagging through images in Library Loupe viewing. I use a dual 24" and 20" setup. Can't wait for the bug fix. Was even considering Photo Mechanic as a temporary band-aid to the problem.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 05:13:54 PM by Sheldon N » Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 810


« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2010, 10:27:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Been using LR 3.2RC, and it's better on rapid advances through photos in the library and when tagging photos. However I will still hit the brick wall at 100% RAM usage which slows everything to a crawl. I think that they are going to need to fix the way LR accesses RAM, capping it at 80-90% usage of available RAM rather than letting it run to 100%.
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 810


« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2010, 10:17:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Just downloaded the full release version of LR 3.2 and tried it out. Seems faster still, and it's TOTALLY fixed! My issue with RAM usage is gone, no RAM leak as you scroll through and tag images in the Loupe view. RAM usage stays at around 40% of the total capacity, just like it did with LR2.

Thanks Adobe!
Logged

vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2010, 12:44:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Just downloaded 3.2 and with  dual 30" monitors seems much better.  So far not seeing "the spinning wheel of death" with rapid scrolls, etc.  Keeping fingers crossed.

Steve
Logged
2jbourret
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2010, 03:33:43 PM »
ReplyReply

As John has noted above, the most common source of slowdowns for me has also been the use of the lens corrections panel. Preview generation following a perspective adjustment becomes painfully slow, and any other adjustments after that are essentially doomed. I'm hoping the full v3.2 release takes care of the problem. I'll download and try that later today.

Hoping for a solution!
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad