Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe's Performance Hints for Lightroom  (Read 9761 times)
henk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2012, 09:10:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anne,
Thanks for the information ( bedankt voor de informatie! )
My system looks as follows:

Lightroom version: 4.2 [850741]
Operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate Edition
Version: 6.1 [7601]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 2,9 GHz ( i7 )
Built-in memory: 12286,4 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 12286,4 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 398,2 MB (3,2%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 384,6 MB
Memory cache size: 220,7 MB
System DPI setting: 120 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 1920x1200
Cach: 50GB

Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.2
Library Path: F:\Lightroom 4 catalog\Lightroom_4_2012_03\Lightroom_4_2012_03.lrcat

System drive is a 10Krpm
Library drive is 7.5K rpm

At the moment I have 102.300 pictures in the catalogue. Of which 3/4 is off line.
Catalogue is 196 Gb included one back-up and AFTER optimisation.
113.564 files and 55.756 folders

I have tremendous problems with performance. e.g. after 15 to 20 images work in develop it gets fast as thick syrup!
So I close LR and restart the system and work for another 15 to 20 images and then the same protocol!
Not very good when you are under time pressure!
The same catalogue with 98.000 images in LR 3 I had much better response and had never to close LR and start again. What I saw was that the performance with Lens corrections went down.. So I left that out and only did that at the very end.
After deleting the History of all current projects >250 images, I see a bit improvement but after  working on 30 images
slowmotion coming in when opening a new image. So, yes deleting history helps but is not a defenite solution!
 Anybody any other than spending again a 3K euro’s on a new system?

Henk
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 366


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 15, 2012, 01:15:06 PM »
ReplyReply

My experience with LR4.2 is in line with Henk's . and yes lens corrections is a key element, as are spot removals, in the serious perfomance drop experienced. The other day i had a project with several hundreds of portraits (headshots mainly) of young teenagers. Of course quite a few have Acne and pimples. and yes afte say 10-20 i had to quit and start LR to get some performance back. Yes i have a ivybridge platform with i7 3770 and 16 gb and Ssd.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
henk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #42 on: December 18, 2012, 02:06:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anne,
Not sure you received my offline replay! Did not see my replay.
Henk
Logged
henk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #43 on: December 18, 2012, 02:09:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi folks,
Did some alteration to my LR4 catalogue but not on the Hardware. Think I made some progress  Grin. Will report on it after tomorrow.
Henk
Logged
henk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #44 on: December 31, 2012, 11:55:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi
I have done some test and changes and here are the results.
Done the following:
- Export as catalogue excluding previews. This worked but in editing the pictures it was to slow for the 1:1. previews. Did this in accordance to Ian Lyons advice. http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/2012/03/25/tips-to-help-mitigate-lightroom-4-0-performance-issues/
- Then an export including previews. 3 attempts. First, my system cam to a hold at 80% export. Second attempt LR came with a popup message““ Adobe photoshop lightroom 64 bit has stopped working. A problem caused the program to stop working correctly. Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available. This happened also the 3e time. So I gave up on this. Mind you every attempt took about 5 hours!
Since I though it was a good idea from Ian to create a clean catalogue and Anne advice to delete the history and me being scared to corrupt my catalogue I did as follows:
Copy, with Terracopy the total LR directory on a new HD. Did an export catalogue without previews en replaced the copied Lrcat with this one. Then did a history delete and optimise and all works fine.
A quick and dirty edit ( Autotone and gross Adjustments) on about 50 images for the bin, learned me that  for about 30 images I had a good response but then it started getting slow and after 40 images I had to stop PR and start it again.
I leave it for the moment since it took quite some time to get to this point. But I will consider in the new year SSD upgrade and some extra RAM.
For now a Happy New Year and magnificent light in the New Year.
Henk
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 366


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2013, 05:07:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Henk,

Happy new year.

i use a SSD for my catalogs, it does not matter for the performance degradation. It has little to do with the drive, it is more in the area of cpu speed and memory management, perhaps by this LUA part of the application. more memory can make some difference if you do a lot of exports, to see the total memory used by LR it is not just the lr exe, there is aslo anothe process thread to look for , i forgot the name, will come back on this when i can.
Logged

Fine art photography: www.janrsmit.com
Courses and workshops: www.centrumbeeldbeleving.nl

Jan R. Smit
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2013, 11:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

i have a new lenovo t340s with fastest available processor, 16gb memory, 500gb SSD, 750gb 7400rpm internal drive.  it also seems to me that preview rendering (1:1 previews of 5D3 files rendered in 4 sec/image - about 2 1/2 times faster than my 5 year old Dell), exports, etc. are limited by the processor.  i've designated a large cache on the SSD (no matter what kind of system you're using you should enlarge the cache and check every now and then to see how much is being used).  i'm disappointed that it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference whether the catalog and/or images are on the SSD or magnetic drive. 

the last couple of times i've Exported as Catalog, i've had the failure message come up.  however it seems that the complete catalog was successfully exported with all images and opens properly!?
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #47 on: January 09, 2013, 11:24:49 PM »
ReplyReply

after 3 weeks, my Crucial M4 SSD failed.  this prompted me to do some more research and reflect on the lack of obvious performance improvement from the SSD (with admitted limited comparison testing).  i found Ian Lyons blog www.computer darkroom.com/blog/will-an-s (don't guarantee the address) which gives some very detailed results of SSD vs hard disk - the conclusion being that the SSD can have about a 10% benefit as best.

my conclusion from experience and other research is that the only way to significantly improve performance is with faster processors and more cores (assuming adequate memory -i've got 16gb, but 8gb may be enough).

since a significant amount of my photography is international with little support available, the potential unreliability of the SSD is unacceptable and the upside of the experience was SSD failure within the return period rather than in Patagonia in Feb
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2013, 02:16:54 AM »
ReplyReply

after 3 weeks, my Crucial M4 SSD failed.  this prompted me to do some more research and reflect on the lack of obvious performance improvement from the SSD (with admitted limited comparison testing).  i found Ian Lyons blog www.computer darkroom.com/blog/will-an-s (don't guarantee the address) which gives some very detailed results of SSD vs hard disk - the conclusion being that the SSD can have about a 10% benefit as best.

my conclusion from experience and other research is that the only way to significantly improve performance is with faster processors and more cores (assuming adequate memory -i've got 16gb, but 8gb may be enough).

since a significant amount of my photography is international with little support available, the potential unreliability of the SSD is unacceptable and the upside of the experience was SSD failure within the return period rather than in Patagonia in Feb

1.  My Crucial SSD's (4) have never failed. (3) are nearly 3 years old and (1) six months.  However, I've noticed an usually large failure rate in the forums.. and not so much from the SSD electronics, but because of the way the firmware conflicted with other parts of the system.  Because of the relatively short validation periods I never recommend them for my builds.

2.  Without even reading this test (I have, the blog has been around a while) we know that SSD's are I/O devices, or devices that read and/or write.  Therefore they WILL offer tremendous advantages in the I/O portion of our workflow.  We can only give a percentage of improvement if we GUESS about the workflow, we must know the detailed workflow to know how much benefit an SSD offers.  For instance, someone tethered to a computer in the studio shootiing products, one every 60 seconds, probably won't notice an improvement at all.  But a sales rep showing off his portfolio through use or LR's catalogue and preview images , and who uses SSD's for the catalogue, data drive, cache.. will notice big changes.   

Still, SSD's improve other parts of your system enough so that a modern system will almost always include an SSD for your system drive, and workstations will add at least one and sometimes two more SSD's for catalogues and data.


3.  RAM is critical to workflow and I'm glad to see Adobe finally address this in the referenced article.  Unfortunately it's true that for most people the most speed changes comes from the CPU and RAM selection.  Too bad Adobe hasn't yet engaged the GPU's most of us have.

4.   I use SSD's BECAUSE of their LOW failure rate (and of course the speed increases) in relation to HDD's.. precisely because I travel internationally and find myself in remote areas often.  SSD's easily take more physical abuse (drops. bumps, vibration) and because they don't generate heat (a result of using much less power) my systems run cooler and for longer times on the batteries.  One small laptop I used recently would only last 3.5 hours watching movies on an international flight.  After replacing the HDD with an SSD I achieved 9 hours on the return.  For all these reasons, much higher reliability, they use less power, generate less heat, I find them highly desirable for international/rough&tough type use.     So, I wouldn't necessarily base your decision on the single sample you've tried.
Logged

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

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2013, 02:21:53 AM »
ReplyReply

i have a new lenovo t340s with fastest available processor, 16gb memory, 500gb SSD, 750gb 7400rpm internal drive.  it also seems to me that preview rendering (1:1 previews of 5D3 files rendered in 4 sec/image - about 2 1/2 times faster than my 5 year old Dell), exports, etc. are limited by the processor.  i've designated a large cache on the SSD (no matter what kind of system you're using you should enlarge the cache and check every now and then to see how much is being used).  i'm disappointed that it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference whether the catalog and/or images are on the SSD or magnetic drive. 

the last couple of times i've Exported as Catalog, i've had the failure message come up.  however it seems that the complete catalog was successfully exported with all images and opens properly!?
I just finished a W530 with a Adata 256gb SSD (tiny thing) in the Msata slot, a 512gb SSD in the SSD slot, and I think we'll change out the optical for a 1tb SSD.. should decide soon.  Thiis is a fantastic machine, with the Adata Msata as   system, it scored 12,544 Geekbench scores.. We're using this to run a music studio so it only has the 1600x900 screen and not the 1920x1080.. but next month I'll probably order one for myself.  Hopefully I'll get the review posted soon.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
henk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2013, 11:18:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
Now after a week full use of LR I must say that the effort I put in is paying off. Yes, I still have to close LR and fire it up again but that is about after one hour. Just in time to get my mouse arm end eyes a rest! Including local adjustments and even a few lens corrections. So I am a bit more happy. Still think that Adobe should put in their effort to get the software much more efficient. Even if this is at the cost of new tools. First speed then tools!
Henk
Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2013, 11:27:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Steve - yes, those are the reasons i bought an SSD in the first place.  i always thought an SSD would be in my future - and it still is.  After searching the web and talking to my local tech guy, i'm waiting for the next generation and more reliability history for specific brands/models.  if my normal use benefited more from the SSD speed my decision might be different, but with the minimal improvement in LR, i can't justify the additional cost and reduced peace of mind with the SSD.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 17, 2013, 08:29:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve - yes, those are the reasons i bought an SSD in the first place.  i always thought an SSD would be in my future - and it still is.  After searching the web and talking to my local tech guy, i'm waiting for the next generation and more reliability history for specific brands/models.  if my normal use benefited more from the SSD speed my decision might be different, but with the minimal improvement in LR, i can't justify the additional cost and reduced peace of mind with the SSD.
Stever -  I really think it would benefit you to reconsider using SSD's if your goals are a more reliable drive, especially if shock and vibration figures into the equation as important to you.  If you look only for SSD failures you'll find plenty of them, but if you look closely at their failure rate compared to HDD's I think you'll find in favor of SSD's.

If cost is putting you on the  edge consider a Seagate Momentus XT 750gb for about $129.. They're significantly better performers than regular HDD's and for a few bucks more.

Curious, is your 500gb SSD with your T340 you speak of the Crucial M4?  I used to be a huge advocate for Crucial and still have a couple of their C300's in use today.. ALL without defects, while the forums were full of issues with both (M4 and C300) related to firmware issues.  The C300's were riding the first consumer wave of high performance SSD's and my firmware bricked mine too.. almost forgot about it.  Since I haven't had an SSD fail in something like 150-200 (sloppy guess) of them, or for that matter an HDD in the same time frame.   Anyway, my question was if the M4 was the 500gb model in your T340, did it come that way from Lenovo or did you add it after the purchase?  Lenovo wouldn't tell me what SSD's models they were offering, only if it was SATA II or SATA III and capacity where the W530 is concerned.   If you want the most reliable SSD then consider the Intel 520, it's more/better validated than anything else it competes against.

Btw -  I finished the review on the W530.  I think your T340 is similar enough where some of the information might be useful.
Logged

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

Posts: 271


« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2013, 03:18:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I have two Crucial M4's in my system. There is a firmware bug that causes the drive to to fail after about 5400 hours. The drive will run for one hour then crash. There is a firmware update available that fixes the problem. I applied it to my drives and all is now well.

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

Ad
Ad
Ad