Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR3 much slower than LR2 and even Beta!?  (Read 16554 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5861


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« on: June 20, 2010, 10:10:57 PM »
ReplyReply

It is simply painful... looooong seconds between initiating an action (any action) and seeing the results... and it gets worse as I work longer... when I open it, it shows about 600-700 MB of memory used, but soon expands to 2 GB which brings everything to an excruciating  crawl and perpetual beach balls.

The same hardware I have was quite fine for LR2 and even LR3 Beta (under which I would attribute an occasional beach ball for some actions to the beta status). I did trash all lightroom plists and have all the latest software updates.

As for hardware, I am on iMac 24 with 3 GB (max) Intel Core 2 Duo memory, under Snow Leopard 10.6.4., running LR3 in 64-bit mode (switching to 32-bit mode does not significantly change things).

Checking web forums, I see a lot of people with the same problem, but have not come across a solution yet.

Any ideas?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 807


« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2010, 01:35:50 AM »
ReplyReply

No solutions here, but I am experiencing the same problem. I'm on a high end quad core PC (Vista 64bit, 3.6GHz, 8GB RAM, Veliciprator for OS, LR Catalogs on a RAID 0 array, etc). When browsing through the catalog I've seen memory usage creep up to 100% (all 8 gigs) at which point the machine slows to a crawl. This is just doing very basic stuff like flipping from photo to photo and tagging images with 1-5 star ratings, AFTER I've let the machine generate 1:1 previews.

I think there's a serious memory leak bug in the software and am hoping that Adobe gets a fix out soon.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2010, 09:46:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
Checking web forums, I see a lot of people with the same problem, but have not come across a solution yet.

Any ideas?
I don't know if this fixed it our not.. but I experienced much the same issue when I first went to LR3 and used converted indexes/previews.

I deleted all my old indexes and previews and started over with LR3 generated defaults in the location of my choice.. and no more issues.

You could try this with a small sample index/preview folder without deleting your main ones.. see if it works.  Even with over 164,000 images in my current catalog things work fine now..

Not sure the new indexes/previews actually fixed the issue.. I only know I had no more problem with it after I did..

I wish you luck.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7397


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2010, 11:49:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have not seen any problem, but I run on a MacPro with 16 GByte of memory. I have also a Macbook with just 4 GByte, but I didn't test LR3 on that one. I'm going to use the Macbook next week and will report back what I see.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
It is simply painful... looooong seconds between initiating an action (any action) and seeing the results... and it gets worse as I work longer... when I open it, it shows about 600-700 MB of memory used, but soon expands to 2 GB which brings everything to an excruciating  crawl and perpetual beach balls.

The same hardware I have was quite fine for LR2 and even LR3 Beta (under which I would attribute an occasional beach ball for some actions to the beta status). I did trash all lightroom plists and have all the latest software updates.

As for hardware, I am on iMac 24 with 3 GB (max) Intel Core 2 Duo memory, under Snow Leopard 10.6.4., running LR3 in 64-bit mode (switching to 32-bit mode does not significantly change things).

Checking web forums, I see a lot of people with the same problem, but have not come across a solution yet.

Any ideas?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5861


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2010, 02:51:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steve Weldon
... I deleted all my old indexes and previews and started over with LR3 generated defaults in the location of my choice.. and no more issues....
Thanks for the tip. After deleting mine, I freed some 10-12 GB of disk space, but the improvement in the LR3 performance appears to be rather marginal. The memory usage still creeps up to almost 2 GB after a while. The most annoying thing is working with adjustment brushes and having to wait for long seconds until you can actually see the effect... very often, by the time you see it, you've overdone it   And I am currently working with a catalogue of merely 5,000 images.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
max gruzen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2010, 03:11:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I run a Macbook Pro 2.54 with 4 Gb memory. I did nothing more then download and install LR3 to replace my LR2. The program runs very fast with no problems. Go figure?
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2010, 12:50:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
Thanks for the tip. After deleting mine, I freed some 10-12 GB of disk space, but the improvement in the LR3 performance appears to be rather marginal. The memory usage still creeps up to almost 2 GB after a while. The most annoying thing is working with adjustment brushes and having to wait for long seconds until you can actually see the effect... very often, by the time you see it, you've overdone it   And I am currently working with a catalogue of merely 5,000 images.
I paid more attention to your gear.. An Imac is merely a laptop processor/system in an all in one.. so I played with a couple of my laptops and catalogs of some 20,000 images.

My main workstation is an i7 running at 3.8g with 12gs of RAM, a SSD system drive, and my indexes/previews on their own drive.  There is no delay with the adjustment brushes unless I build up more than 12-15 adjustment points and from there it slows down.  There is also, and always has been, a 1-2 second delay before the changes show up on the second monitor.  This has always been irritating and I hope they improve it some day.   This system has 164,xxx images in its catalog.  

My Dell Precision Mobile Workstation with 4gs of RAM, a Core 2 Duo 2.5g, 1g quatro video, mechanical hard disk.. It basically performs as you describe with a catalog of 10,000  images.

My new Lenova x201s 2.5 pound laptop.. not really a processing machine but it is fast.  i7, 4gigs of RAM, SSD, and scores significantly better than the Dell above on the Windows Index..  It works great.. up to the point of 6-7 adjustment points.. and then it starts to slow down.


I also tried 2.7 and didn't notice much change from 3.0.


It appears there is a hardware factor when using LR.  We've always known this but we've never talked about it much..   Since I do most of my work, and virtually all of my heavy work, on my main workstation it doesn't affect me much.  But the few times I was forced to use my Precision Mobile Workstation in the field I sure did.. and an Imac mechanically is pretty much the same.. unless you have one of the brand new ones..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2010, 02:51:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: max gruzen
I run a Macbook Pro 2.54 with 4 Gb memory. I did nothing more then download and install LR3 to replace my LR2. The program runs very fast with no problems. Go figure?
Same here! I didn't rebuild anything. I use 6GB of RAM on a 2.4GHz MacBook Pro.
Logged

Francois
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2010, 05:58:49 AM »
ReplyReply

If you browse the other LR forums, including the official Adobe one and Victoria Bampton's, you will find that users are reporting a similar divergent experience with LR3. For some it runs fine, for others it is very slow. And so far there does not seem to be much of a pattern to it.

My own experience on Win7/64 with an Intel dual core 2.1 and 4GB RAM is that LR3 runs OK, but somewhat slower than 2.7.

John
Logged

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

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2010, 12:34:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
It is simply painful... looooong seconds between initiating an action (any action) and seeing the results... and it gets worse as I work longer... when I open it, it shows about 600-700 MB of memory used, but soon expands to 2 GB which brings everything to an excruciating  crawl and perpetual beach balls.

The same hardware I have was quite fine for LR2 and even LR3 Beta (under which I would attribute an occasional beach ball for some actions to the beta status). I did trash all lightroom plists and have all the latest software updates.

As for hardware, I am on iMac 24 with 3 GB (max) Intel Core 2 Duo memory, under Snow Leopard 10.6.4., running LR3 in 64-bit mode (switching to 32-bit mode does not significantly change things).

Checking web forums, I see a lot of people with the same problem, but have not come across a solution yet.

Any ideas?

I have a MacPro 2.66 Quad with 13GB RAM: Some operations take longer and others are shorter. The overall feel is the same or a bit better than 2.7. However the incredible improvement in IQ makes this an exciting update for me. It seems rendering previews and exporting JPEGs takes longer and this would seem to be attributed to the more sophisticated processing of the 2010 engine---no free lunch. As for expanding memory I believe this is the normal course of events. The program has no idea what you intend to be doing at first and increases it's share of RAM as you go in order to keep as much of your work in RAM as possible. Even with several GB of free RAM available my LR3x64 will start up with less than 1GB of RAM. After bouncing around modules, painting, keywording, publishing etc the RAM usage will raise to about 4GB. If I leave it for the day it will slowly drop back down when it realizes I'm not working any more. I believe this is the nature of UNIX memory management. Frankly, between LR3 and Snow Leopard 3GB of RAM will not go fast and furious. That said I hope things will improve for you one way or the other.

David

PS When I bought my MacPro in 2006 I was sure I'd never need another Mac again just like I thought with the G4, 9600, 2ci etc. LR3 is probably the end of the line for this box. By the time LR4 comes out I'll have to pony up the cash for the latest monster tower!

Logged
Photo Op
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 193


« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2010, 07:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Aside from from having minimal memory, more often than not having the OS, LR3, photos AND cache on one 5400 rpm harddrive results in slowing LR v1,2,3 operations down. Of course I'm only guessing that is your setup with the iMac. Those constraints have been discussed since early Betas. As LR "grows", I can only assume (!) the problem will grow with it. I seldom read of folks that have the 'slow' problem also list their hardware as a DeskPro, 4+ gig ram, and 4-7200 rpm hard drives.
Logged

David
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 841



« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2010, 10:11:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Photo Op,

Go to the Adobe LR3 Forum and you will find plenty of folks with high end gear and complaints about lack of performance.
And it is both sides of the platform aisle about equally, PC and Mac. The slows don't seem to favor any flavor or configuration.
Logged

terence_patrick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2010, 03:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

for the OP:

How much free disk space do you have on the drive with the catalog and the images? I was noticing a slowdown in LR3 after being very happy with the performance of LR3b2, but after checking a bunch of different solutions out, realized I only had about 15% free space left on the external drive my images are stored on (catalog is stored on a separate drive). I got bigger disks for my images and have seen LR3 become a lot more responsive.
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2010, 02:41:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I did notice that all the previews that are already drawn in catalogue are redrawn in the LR shipping version. They are not drawing that fast, I think icons drew faster in 2.7.

Performance wise, I really see a very small hit in LR 3 for the added controls in Dev module but really a few tenths of a second. Even the brush tool is working fine.

I don't use my portable though for other than capture, so the catalogue is emptied often.

The editing computer is a MacPro 9GB memory, Raid 0, enough space left for everything.





Logged
Christian
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2010, 08:31:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm having quite similar problems to what's described here.  For example, changing between different splits tone presets take several seconds to see the results.  All previous versions of Lightroom never had any problems like this.  Hardware is 3GHz quad-core, so shouldn't be a problem.  I hope Adobe looks into this really quickly because the software is (at times) virtually unusable.
Logged
Ed Blagden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2010, 06:09:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I guess this is validation for my own personal rule never ever to buy version x.0 software.  I think I'll wait for 3.3 or 3.4.

Ed (running LR2.7 on my seriously puny and nearly obsolete HP laptop, but it still goes like sh*t off a shovel)
Logged

Visit my Flickr page
solardarkroom.com
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2010, 12:36:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Christian
I'm having quite similar problems to what's described here.  For example, changing between different splits tone presets take several seconds to see the results.  All previous versions of Lightroom never had any problems like this.  Hardware is 3GHz quad-core, so shouldn't be a problem.  I hope Adobe looks into this really quickly because the software is (at times) virtually unusable.

Despite my comments in this thread that all was well (couple weeks ago) I am now inexplicably in the Painfully-Slow camp. I have no idea at the moment why but the develop module is close to useless as the response time for every singe adjustment is several seconds now. I've moved the Camera Raw cache, purged it, de-fragged the drive etc. I have also purged all system caches just for fun. I guess I'll be waiting for an update now and hope that fixes it. Very strange development. If it was like this from the day I upgraded to LR3 I would assume my 2006 MacPro was the issue. Clearly that is not the case.

David
Logged
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2010, 04:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Me too..It seems to be getting slower with time...spinning beach balls with even simple operations...Mac Pro quad core with 20 gig RAM...no problems with 2.7 or 3 beta.

Steve
Logged
Dennishh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2010, 07:26:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Me to, Slow Slow Slow!!! I think this is a classic get out the door syndrome. Aperture released so do we, even if it's not ready and some features are not included. The hell with the customers, they can wait.  Adobe is a profit driven company without any other concerns. With all the layoffs fewer and fewer people are tasked with more complex upgrades and this is what happens. Time to start looking at other products again, but I fear they are in the same boat.
Logged
vandevanterSH
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2010, 11:32:05 PM »
ReplyReply

"I find LR3 on my MacPro 8 core to be overall faster than 2.7 was."
*********
I upgraded the day of release and it ran faster then 2.7 and possibly 3 beta.  It has just been in the past few days that I noticed slow performance and the "spinning wheels of death".

Steve
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad