Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Saving takes on an SSD as long as on an HD  (Read 3541 times)
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« on: December 25, 2013, 06:51:54 AM »
ReplyReply

intel i7-4930K CPU @3.4Ghz
Memory 64GB
OS 8.1Pro on 2 SSD Raid 0
Scratch on a seperate SSD
Work disk 2 x SSD Raid 0
Lightroom on a seperate SSD
Store 2 x HD 3TB Raid 0
Motherboard Asus X79WS
 
Photoshop CC
 
In order to work fast I have 2 SSD (each 500GB) in Raid 0
Later I save the files on  2x HD 3TB
However, it makes no difference in time at which disk I store.
This while the write speed of the SSD is much higher.
Takes on the HD 30 seconds saving a big file then that the SSD's just as long.
I need  on the HD or the SSD 30 seconds for a *tif file of 70 Mb with 17 layers. Open in Photoshop CC the file is 265 Mb
If a copy a file of 1,5 Gb and place it on a other disk it is done in a few seconds.

I have als tried to turn off the Windows write cache buffer. No difference
How can this be? My computer builder does not know. The PC is working properly.
Logged

xocet
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2013, 05:12:34 PM »
ReplyReply

As a quick test, restrict the amount of memory PS can use (to something minimal like 2GB), then run the same tests saving a file to the HDD and SSD.  There's a chance that application caching is influencing the results.

I would strongly caution you against running your 'store' drives in a RAID 0 configuration. A single disk failure with RAID 0 means you lose everything. I'd also set the OS disks to RAID 1.  If you still feel you need some extra speed, buy a better quality SSD (using SLC NAND), but to be honest, I don't think you're going to get any appreciable difference in speed. Once you've started the PC and programs, given you have 64GB memory, most stuff is going to be cached in memory.

Spinning rust HDDs are quite good a sequential reads.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 09:49:11 PM by xocet » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2013, 05:44:01 PM »
ReplyReply

With single file transfers its possible you won't 'notice' speed differences between HDD's and SSD's.  If a HDD takes a second to save a 70mb file, and an SSD does it 100 times faster.. will you really notice the difference between a second and a hundredth of a second?  Only if you're watching for it..

With that said, 30 seconds for a 70mb file.. something is amiss.    What type of SSD and HDD's are you using?  Connected to I assume SATAIII ports?  ACHI or EDI?  Write caches on/off?   Setup can make a big difference.

I agree with the last poster, make sure there's enough RAM available (after your page file, LR cache, PS cache, and whatever else you have running) for your OS to breath.    And I agree with the RAID 0 sentiments.  Unless you're off-loading each file when you're done with it.. it's a big risk.   

One more place I'd look.. is your RAID controller and drivers.  Especially if using a RAID controller on the MB..   Try a fast single SSD on a SATAIII port set up as ACHI, write cache off.. see what happens. 
Logged

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

Posts: 2223



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2013, 07:27:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I would be looking at the raid configuration.  First of all SSDs can have little to no performance gain if properly setup going from a single good connection.  2nd of all I agree with the above you have other issue(s) if it takes that long regardless.  It sounds like you have an overly complex build for whatever reason...not sure what the builder was trying to achieve there...
Logged

george2787
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2013, 12:08:36 AM »
ReplyReply

So you are taking a 265MB file that is stored in RAM, compressing it and writing the result to either a HD or a SSD, lets say writing 70MB on a regular hard drive takes 1 second (it's less) and writing to the SSD takes 0,25 seconds, the difference in "small" sizes won't be a lot and the rest of your 30 seconds is being used to compress the file. If you are into overclocking you can easily test by under and overclocking the CPU.

If you want to increase saving times you can: uncheck LZW or ZIP compression for TIFFs or switch to PSD without previews.
Logged
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2013, 06:03:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your reactions
I tested without knowing that6 the files had a Zip compression Roll Eyes. Without the compression it takes 10 seconds. But again it doesn't matter if is on the HD or SSD.
I also tried it with a uncompressed 2,8 GB tiff file. To open it (That I can see it) in Photoshop cost 30 seconds and 17 seconds to close it. No difference in time between the SSD and HD

For people who really like to see what system they build for me I have attached a hardware report. Is this report helpful for you?


This is a workstation for me. Everything is backup on Synology hardware.
I wanted to have a very fast PC because I work sometimes with very big files and it is an investment for the next 5 years.
And who knows if Canon comes finally with 40 Mp camera  Smiley
Logged

degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2013, 11:00:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Just a quick look, but maybe the raided SSDs are plugged into a 1X pcie link raid Adapter card ? That is only a 1.5 G bits/sec bandwidth shared by the two ssds and which would also be about the saturation limit for a hard disk transfer rate. That would be typical of cheap "raid" add in card. You have to use server grade add in cards with at least a 4x or preferably an 8x pcie link width or the native intel sata controller suporting sata 6 Gbits/sec.

If that is correct, you should get rid of the raid and plug the ssds into the intel sata ports. Otherwise it will require 250 $ or more to get a decent raid card.

Frank
Logged
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2013, 09:05:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The builder of the Workstation is really sure that the hardware is optimal.
I must be a Photoshop isue!! Angry
Logged

degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2013, 11:39:09 AM »
ReplyReply

It looks like two of the Kingston ssds are running at 3 Gbits/sec (240,120) banwidth.
The two (raid 0) Kingston 120 ssds are running on a 6 Gb/sec
The two (raid 0) Samsung 500 evo are running at 3 Gbit/sec
The two 3TB HD (raid 0) are on a 6 Gbit/sec link - not sure they can saturate that bandwidth. Most HDs max out at no more than 150MB/sec. Even if you got 300 MB/sec, that is still less than a 3 Gbit bandwidth.

So depending on which sets you are copying between you may see restriction.

Samsung 500s on a 3Gbit link are probably throttled and should perform better on a 6 Gbit link. The HD raid may perform just as well on a 3 Gbit link, particularly if only used for storage. The two solo Kingstons may benefit from a 6 Gbit link as well, but i don't know if they can saturate it.

Given that the board does not have enough 6 Gbit SATA links, there would have to be a compromise based on usage intent unless you want to invest in a good SATA/SAS raid controller. Also, you have to start considering the other possible bandwidth limitations on the buses.

Frank


Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2013, 02:00:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The builder of the Workstation is really sure that the hardware is optimal.
I must be a Photoshop isue!! Angry

Of course he is.

For comparisons sake I just saved a 5 layer 170mb file to CS6x32 CS6x64, CCx32 and CCx64  Without compression they took (timed by PS) .2 seconds no matter to a RAID1 with two 3tb HDD's or a super fast SSD.  Which tells me I'm still within the size of whatever Photoshop is using of my RAM for caching purposes.

With compression it takes 3.8 secs to the HDD RAID1 no matter x32 or x64 of any version.  It takes 3.4x with CC x64 to my SSD, 3.5 with CS6x64 to my SSD, and 3.6 using CCx32 and CS6x32..

If you want to put your test file up on your server (or upload it to mine) I'll run the same tests so you can compare.  My system is more modest than yours as I didn't see the point of exceeding the point of marginal returns for a image processing station..  It's a Haswell 4770k, 32gb of 2133 RAM, Win7, with a RAID1 using two fast 7200rpm 3tb drives, a Vertex 4 for the OS, a Crucial C300 for 'that other' OS, a Samsung 840 pro for a work drive, and some misc standalone 3tb drives. with a GTX7702gb GPU.. ALL drives are using 6gbps SATAIII ports because I didn't skimp on the motherboard..   

Really, for the life of me I can't see why your builder ran with a MB without enough SATAIII ports for at least all the SSD's if not all drives period.  With all the money you threw at this he was worried about another $100?  And with the most likely bottlenecks too.. 
Logged

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

Posts: 2223



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2013, 08:34:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Your builder is an idiot.  Good luck Wink
Logged

degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2013, 10:43:19 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW, there was a Marvell Raid controller driver update that resolved some bandwidth issues a while back. You may want to have your system builder investigate to see if that may improve the situation. I understand that it requires motherboard manufacturer support as well. Perhaps open a support ticket with ASUS if there is not a newer version already available.

Good luck,
Frank
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2013, 11:55:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Your builder is an idiot.  Good luck Wink

I'm in agreement with the sentiment, though it could have been pure greed and makes me wonder where else he saved a buck (power supply, etc).. but in my older age I tend to temper the words a bit..  Roll Eyes
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1771



WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2013, 07:02:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Two thoughts:

1) Is the RAID adapter for the SSDs a fast, high-end unit? Not all RAID adapters are created equal.
2) Are you saving in some sort of compressed file format? The time to do the compressing may be the culprit.

Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2013, 08:54:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Look at these tips
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-performance-photoshop-cs4-cs5.html
Frank
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 758



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2013, 02:17:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I really have to question running all these drives as raid o. I suspect the theoretical loss in speed of a good ssd on a 6gb/s port is negligible compared to the OP's raid 0 array.  In fact given the poor speeds he is producing I suspect the raid 0 is  actually slower.

That's not even mentioning the folly (imo) of the ssd raid 0 boot drive array.

it all appears rather misguided to me.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
george2787
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2013, 02:17:25 AM »
ReplyReply

What I'd love to see is how much real world performance is gained with al those SSDs and Raids versus say one 500GB 840 evo for Os, lightroom previews, caching and everything needed and 2x3TB raid1 for storage... Right now I'm using a 3 year old imac with a SATA2 SSD and 1TB HD and i just can't find an excuse to upgrade it yet  Grin
Logged
Huib
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2013, 04:42:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice that you are thinking about where the problem actually lies.
I myself am not a computer expert.
All discs are in my opinion a SAT300 except the OS (C) which is a SATA600 jack stand.
If I save the tif file on the  disk (The two (raid 0) Kingston 120 ssds)  it also makes no difference in time.
Logged

mcbroomf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 382


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2013, 07:02:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a computer expert either but the 1st thing I'd do is to test your SSDs as separate drives, ie change from raid 0.
Logged

Mike Broomfield
Website
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2013, 09:58:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice that you are thinking about where the problem actually lies.
I myself am not a computer expert.
All discs are in my opinion a SAT300 except the OS (C) which is a SATA600 jack stand.
If I save the tif file on the  disk (The two (raid 0) Kingston 120 ssds)  it also makes no difference in time.

Just curious.. are you saying that while you are not a computer "expert", you still know enough to judge the help you disagree with as unhelpful?   Hmm.

And what is a jack stand?  And how can it be an "opinion" about what type of port you're using?   Are you using a translator for a technical issue? 

Here it is in black and white:  Your computer "expert" who sold you the machine and I presume made money doing do, did you a disservice at a minimum.  This machine needs to be reconfigured.  If you are willing to do this I'm sure the good folks in this thread can help you get it right.  If not, well.. imagine if your ship is stuck in the ice..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad