Skip to main content
April 10, 2012
Answered

Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

  • April 10, 2012
  • 8 replies
  • 24150 views

Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

Hi there

I'm stunned at the amount of RAM usage by LIghtroom. I have 6Gb of RAM using LR4 in 64 bit win7.

This is what happened when I opened lightroom to edit a shoot of jpgs, all of which were only about 3mb each ( I wasn't even editing 30Mb RAW files from my DSLRs )

figures from task manager/performance pane:
**************************
No Lightroom

0.99 GB

Launch Lightroom and cat

1.53 GB

select next pic

2.00 Gb

select next pic (no editing yet )

2.20 GB

after editing two pics

3.13 GB

editing the 2nd pic in Nik Software Silver Efex pro 2 ( edit copy with lightroom adjustments ) and returning to lightroom

2.85 GB

but ....

Very soon, after only a few pics, the RAM usage is up to 5.5GB

*********************************************************************

This seems very disproportionate. Why for example would simply selecting another 3mb jpg eat up another 200Mb of RAM? And why after only a bit of editing on this 3mb pic in the develop module eat up another 900Mb of RAM?

The other highly annoying issue is that once Lightroom has decided to eat up nearly all my available RAM after editing only a few 3mb JPGs, things slow down rapidly. selecting another pic means everything locks up while their is vicious disk activity ( presumably swapping to swap file because Lightroom needs another 200Mb of ram for just one 3mb JPG )

it's not much fun having to quit LR every few images just to 'reset' thje amount of RAM.

This topic has been closed for replies.
Correct answer

OK, seem to be getting somewhere now

As stated in the OP I work in 64 bit Win 7. I have a win 7 32 bitpartition on the same machine I use for various things and also for testing Lightroom updates without upsetting my main LR work partition.

Earlier tonight I isntalled 4.1RC2 on my win 7 32 bit partition and ahve been working on a shoot. Interestingly the RAN usage seems much better managed. Instead of progressviely creeping up to a point of ARRGHHH!!!, with RC2 memory is released when switching images. Great news!!   Now bearing mind I still need to stest this in my 64 bit martition and I will isntall RC2 once confident it wont' fall right over, but positive os far.

ALSO, which I've just started testing is the negative cache disablement as described by Adfoibe Employee  Julie Kmoch here

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr4_0_reacts_extremely_slow

who said:

******************************************************************

Here's an update on what changed in RC2 relative to Develop performance.

For starters, in RC1 we experimented with turning off sharpening while sliders were moving. We got a fair amount of negative feedback on that, and have reverted that behavior. Instead, we moved more of the rendering to a background thread, which keeps the sliders moving smoothly. One caveat with the behavior in RC2 is that those background renders can pile up if you're moving fast. The final 4.1 release will do a better job of trimming these when possible.

I worked with a number of you who volunteered to try an experiment a couple weeks ago that turned off something we call negative caching. The results were mixed; a couple people said it was a clear improvement, others didn't see a benefit. But I'll offer it here in case it helps others who find performance starts out reasonably then suddenly, consistently goes south until a restart.

What the following will do is turn off a cache which saves some of your most recent work done in Develop such that if you revisit a recently touched image, it loads faster. However, if our calculations are off, this cache can sometimes get too big and cause ACR to use virtual memory instead of RAM.

To try it:

1. Create a text file called “config.lua” and put the following line in it: AgNegativeCache.enabled = false

2. Launch Lightroom, go to the Preferences dialog, Presets tab, and hit “Show Lightroom Presets Folder”.

3. Close the Preferences dialog, quit Lightroom.

4. Drop the attached config.lua file into the Lightroom folder that was opened in step 2 (do not put it in one of the preset subfolders). So the path to the file will look like this:

Mac: /Users/[yourname]/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Lightroom/config.lua

Win:  C:\Users\[yourname]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\config.lua

You’ll know this switch to turn the cache off is working if you see the “Loading...” symbol even when you revisit the previously edited image in Develop. (When caching is on, you can often revisit a recently edited photo without the Loading warning showing.)

******************************************************************

I'll report back laters

8 replies

Correct answer
April 28, 2012

OK, seem to be getting somewhere now

As stated in the OP I work in 64 bit Win 7. I have a win 7 32 bitpartition on the same machine I use for various things and also for testing Lightroom updates without upsetting my main LR work partition.

Earlier tonight I isntalled 4.1RC2 on my win 7 32 bit partition and ahve been working on a shoot. Interestingly the RAN usage seems much better managed. Instead of progressviely creeping up to a point of ARRGHHH!!!, with RC2 memory is released when switching images. Great news!!   Now bearing mind I still need to stest this in my 64 bit martition and I will isntall RC2 once confident it wont' fall right over, but positive os far.

ALSO, which I've just started testing is the negative cache disablement as described by Adfoibe Employee  Julie Kmoch here

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr4_0_reacts_extremely_slow

who said:

******************************************************************

Here's an update on what changed in RC2 relative to Develop performance.

For starters, in RC1 we experimented with turning off sharpening while sliders were moving. We got a fair amount of negative feedback on that, and have reverted that behavior. Instead, we moved more of the rendering to a background thread, which keeps the sliders moving smoothly. One caveat with the behavior in RC2 is that those background renders can pile up if you're moving fast. The final 4.1 release will do a better job of trimming these when possible.

I worked with a number of you who volunteered to try an experiment a couple weeks ago that turned off something we call negative caching. The results were mixed; a couple people said it was a clear improvement, others didn't see a benefit. But I'll offer it here in case it helps others who find performance starts out reasonably then suddenly, consistently goes south until a restart.

What the following will do is turn off a cache which saves some of your most recent work done in Develop such that if you revisit a recently touched image, it loads faster. However, if our calculations are off, this cache can sometimes get too big and cause ACR to use virtual memory instead of RAM.

To try it:

1. Create a text file called “config.lua” and put the following line in it: AgNegativeCache.enabled = false

2. Launch Lightroom, go to the Preferences dialog, Presets tab, and hit “Show Lightroom Presets Folder”.

3. Close the Preferences dialog, quit Lightroom.

4. Drop the attached config.lua file into the Lightroom folder that was opened in step 2 (do not put it in one of the preset subfolders). So the path to the file will look like this:

Mac: /Users/[yourname]/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Lightroom/config.lua

Win:  C:\Users\[yourname]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\config.lua

You’ll know this switch to turn the cache off is working if you see the “Loading...” symbol even when you revisit the previously edited image in Develop. (When caching is on, you can often revisit a recently edited photo without the Loading warning showing.)

******************************************************************

I'll report back laters

Participating Frequently
July 3, 2012

John

Thanks

I tried successfully your negative caching steps.  So far there has been a very decided improvement.  Since each of my raws are 24+ mps every time I touched one I would watch the ram usage climb in task manager/ process/ lightroom.  If I worked on the image using the adjustment tools every stroke increased the ram usage.  I was often well in excess of 6 gb and then if I round tripped to PS for my Nik filters or any other addtional adjustment PS also wouldn't release memory.  As others have complained LR would either freeze for a period of time or become extremely slow.  While I haven't figured out how to release the PS ram your negative caching has help immensely in LR.

Question - why on earth isn't this part of the code?

Do you know a way to release the same memory problems in CS5?

Thanks

Bob

Participant
April 20, 2012

Lightroom 4 is a waste of my money ... It is so slow!! ... keep getting a message cannot export image ... I even tried LR 4.1 RC but still the same ... hasn't Adobe done any QC before shipping the product??

Participating Frequently
April 14, 2012

I've seen this behaviour too and periodically have to restart Lightroom to get the process' committed memory back down tom something sensible.   In my case on Vista.  I suspect that something in particular triggers the behaviour because I don't see it every time I use Lightroom. 

April 19, 2012

coffeefrog wrote:

I've seen this behaviour too and periodically have to restart Lightroom to get the process' committed memory back down tom something sensible.   In my case on Vista.  I suspect that something in particular triggers the behaviour because I don't see it every time I use Lightroom. 

Yes I have to keep restarting after a few image edits to bring the memory usage back down. Most annoying

Participant
April 20, 2012

I'm seeing the same problem ever since moving to LR4. The RAM usage sucks and especially if you are trying to use any Nik plugins.  LR4 just goes out to never never land for no reason on my Win7 32 bit machine. I taken all unnecessary files out of startup and still get poor performance. I love LR4's Basic controls but I'm almost ready to go back to LR3 for faster performance and editing.

Participating Frequently
April 11, 2012

Windows 7 will on its own fill all available RAM with cached disk data. You can learn more here:  http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-memory-usage-scaremongering.ars and http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed,1532.html

What you really want to watch for is PAGING and . That is all that really matters. You would need to enable the column in the task manager called "Page Faults", and see where those are occuring.

Also, you should disable your virus scanner (like MS Security Essentials) for all your raw file types, the directories that contain your raw files, and the lightroom process itself.

You can get actual data from Lightroom itself Help|System Info, which will give you more useful information:

Lightroom version: 4.1 RC [820174]

Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition

Version: 6.1 [7601]

Application architecture: x64

System architecture: x64

Physical processor count: 8

Processor speed: 2.6 GHz

Built-in memory: 6135.1 MB

Real memory available to Lightroom: 6135.1 MB

Real memory used by Lightroom: 270.3 MB (4.4%)

Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 261.1 MB

Memory cache size: 138.1 MB

System DPI setting: 96 DPI

Desktop composition enabled: Yes

Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

April 11, 2012

jsakhtar wrote:

Windows 7 will on its own fill all available RAM with cached disk data. You can learn more here:  http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-mem ory-usage-scaremongering.ars and http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-ready boostanalyzed,1532.html

What you really want to watch for is PAGING and . That is all that really matters. You would need to enable the column in the task manager called "Page Faults", and see where those are occuring.

Also, you should disable your virus scanner (like MS Security Essentials) for all your raw file types, the directories that contain your raw files, and the lightroom process itself.

You can get actual data from Lightroom itself Help|System Info, which will give you more useful information:

Lightroom version: 4.1 RC [820174]

Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition

Version: 6.1 [7601]

Application architecture: x64

System architecture: x64

Physical processor count: 8

Processor speed: 2.6 GHz

Built-in memory: 6135.1 MB

Real memory available to Lightroom: 6135.1 MB

Real memory used by Lightroom: 270.3 MB (4.4%)

Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 261.1 MB

Memory cache size: 138.1 MB

System DPI setting: 96 DPI

Desktop composition enabled: Yes

Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

Hi there jsakhtar

Indeed Lightroom Help|System Info is in fact  confirming what Task manager says about RAM usage. And yes becuase Lightroom is not releasing memory from previously edited images, once LRs RAM usage reaches close to the limit of physical RAM it certainly does go int opaging the swap file and things slow down to glacial speeds,  paging isn't all that really matters in htis case as the problem that means paging is reached when it shouldn't be is what matters the most.

regarding disabling virus scanner for RAW files, I'm not usign a virus scanner and indeed I'm reporting this usign jogs, not RAW files. 

As much as we can keep looking at our systems and blaming them, this is really a Lightroom problem and that's the where the fix should be applied. A program like lightroom shouldn't have to rely upon users being IT experts for it to run properly.

Inspiring
April 11, 2012

I don't think you have said how many drives you are using? I hope you haven't got your system, pagefile, catalog, previews, acr cache, and images all on one drive!

LR does rely on your hardware/software working properly - we/you don't know that it is, do we/you?

Bob Frost

Inspiring
April 10, 2012

Are you looking at memory specifically listed as being used by Lightroom, or are you looking at the total memory being used by Windows and all your programs? Windows will tend to fill all available memory with things that it thinks you might want in future (based on your past usage), but it frees it up as soon as a program wants it. I think Lightroom does some of the same, keeping things in memory in case you want to use 'undo'.

Bob Frost

April 10, 2012

Hi Bob.  In terms of RAM usage I'm looking at a real world situation of what happens when I launch lightroom in comparison to when it's not running. In regards to 'undo' remember that Lightroom is a database based application and uses non destructive editing. There aren't or shouldn't be copies of previous images in RAM in an undo history, as you might find in a regular graphics editing program like photopaint, etc  the images I was editing were 10mp, so lets say at a max thje RAM needed for the image would be 40Mb. Yet even after editing a couple of pics, LR has eaten up 1.5GBs of RAM.    but... even if for some strange and bizarre reason LR does Require 750Mb of RAM for ONE IMAGE, surely it should free up that RAM when you go onto loading the next image into the develop module.  there is clearly a problem here

Known Participant
April 10, 2012

From my experiences, memory usage can vary from one configuration to another for the exact catalog/image combo -- HW and OS config do play a role here...  One guy can be crusing along with LR consuming 1.5G and another similar situation gobbles up 5.6G...  Now the 5.6G would really only be an issue if LR did not release the memory when not needed (garbage/heap management) --- this was a well documented issue with previous LR releases...  There was a fairly serious memory leak in LR3 (and I think in LR2) that took a while to sort out (only expressed itself in a particular set of circumstances).  My hardware configuration (SLI w/ dual 30” HD monitors) seems to expose boundary condition problems in the code base.

Haven’t played with LR4 yet – learned my lesson from previous LR releases – I now wait until the .1 release is gold prior to updating. 

Participant
April 10, 2012

Well, LR4 does not manage memory properly. An example I faced recently: remove 5000 photos from catalog - the memory will raise from 200MB to 1600MB (Win7). Wait an hour or 24 (does not matter), then remove another 5000 photos from catalog - the memory will raise from 1600MB to almost 3GB of RAM... etc...

hamish niven
Inspiring
April 10, 2012

I have a similar problem on my macbookpro. As soon as I start LR I see that my inactive memory starts rising.

Even if LR is not being used, ie at the moment, I'm watching  inactive slowly climb. At the moment its sitting at 2.26 Gb. Using PURGE in the terminal clears this inactive memory, but it slowly begins to climb again as soon as I start using LR again.

Inspiring
April 10, 2012

John Spacey wrote:

Why for example would simply selecting another 3mb jpg eat up another 200Mb of RAM?

The size of the compressed JPEG is irrelevant.  What matters is the pixel count.

LR should use 8 bytes per pixel just for the image you are processing.

Brett N
Adobe Employee
Adobe Employee
April 10, 2012

Is LR completing any processes (export, rendering, etc)? Progress bars will appear in the top right corner.

Is LR still building 1:1 thumbnails for all of your images? Just because you have just imported only 30 images doesn't mean that LR isn't doing other work with images imported previously. If you've setup LR to create 1:1 previews, if the process wasn't completed previously, then it will startup up again where it left off the last time you used it.

As a proof of concept, try creating a new catalog, don't import any images. See if you still see the same kinds of RAM usage. Then add a couple images, see how it performs.

April 10, 2012

Is LR completing any processes (export, rendering, etc)? Progress bars will appear in the top right corner.

Is LR still building 1:1 thumbnails for all of your images? Just because you have just imported only 30 images doesn't mean that LR isn't doing other work with images imported previously. If you've setup LR to create 1:1 previews, if the process wasn't completed previously, then it will startup up again where it left off the last time you used it.

Hi brett, no there aren't any outstanding processes. I always wait for 1:1 previews to be completed before attempting any editing. (  progress bars are at the top left btw. )

As a proof of concept, try creating a new catalog, don't import any images. See if you still see the same kinds of RAM usage. Then add a couple images, see how it performs.

yes, good call will try this.