Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

[laurencec]

Hi

I just upgraded from lightroom 2.7 to lightroom 3. I then proceeded to import my old catalog. this all went fine but lightroom is so slow, the thumbnail previews take forever to load if I manage to have the patience to wait  for them.

is there a quick solution?? How can it be sped up?

thanks

Laurence

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[calm_Light157F]

Hi,

I observed today that when editing my older Canon 50D images (2178x3267) LR3 seems to be fast. Edititing my Canon 7D (3456x5184) it is very slow. Both is raw format.

What type of files and sizes on the images are you using when slow/fast?

Yesterday I reduced monitor resolution and LR3 became much faster, 7D images too.

So in my case it is large images and monitor resolution (1920x1200) and images size.  Reduce size of one of these factors it speeds up, which of course is natural.  But it was fast in beta, so what happened?

- Terje

[Guest]

Even with a Core i7 - 975 with 12 GB RAM and 4 TB Raid 0 for my database, I also have experienced performance issues with LR 3.

For what it is worth, I submit the following:

   The process:

        1.  I have tried everything this forum recommends with some improvement observed, but still sluggish in certain areas.

                   I even have an SSD on order for LR 3 cache storage..
                   Clearly an absurd situation on a system as powerful as mine.
        2.  Slowdown with delays in the adjustment brush, exporting to Photoshop, and moving picture to picture in the Develop module..
        3.  For example, the 8 threads in the core i7-975, would be at 100% CPU when preparing RAW files for transfer to Photoshop CS5.
        4.  I discovered that the i7-975 CPU temps would be extreme during these activities, using a utility called "Speedfan".
        4.  I replaced the stock Intel heat sync with a high quality device and cut my CPU temps in half.
        5.  My preliminary observation is that I now appear to have no LR 3 performance issues with my Core i7-975 system. 
                   No delays with the adjustment brush.
                   The cpu threads are not at 100% when preparing RAW files for Photoshop CS5 anymore.

                   Picture to picture in the develop module has gone from 5 sec to 2 sec.

                   Back to normal ecporting to Photoshop CS5.
                   Everything seems great - as I would expect with a core i7-975 cpu.

   Conclusion:

        1.  I believe that the motherboard throttles down the CPU when it detects high temps.
        2.  A core I7-975 system should not be this sluggish with LR 3 - the motherboard must be throttling the CPU speed down due to the heat.
        2.  As a result, I am convinced that LR3 probably will not run well on older systems with lower performance CPU chips.
        3.  All the suggestions in this forum result in reduced CPU activity which has to at least help, but is not enough in most cases.

   Trying to run LR 3 on anything near Adobe's minimum recommended configuration with any volume of work will, no doubt lead to much frustration.

    I am not trying to say that all of you should check for extreme CPU temps. But my experience with a throttled back CPU and everything else optimized tells me that slower CPUs are probably the core of the problem with LR 3.  Adobe needs to monitor CPU bottlenecks in their code and see where they are doing something excessive.

   This is a preliminary observation, I will post if I discover more or change my mind.

   Any observations from Adobe about LR 3.0 CPU utilization vis-a-vis LR 2.7 for example?

[JayS_In_CT]

sherlocc wrote:

Even with a Core i7 - 975 with 12 GB RAM and 4 TB Raid 0 for my database, I also have experienced performance issues with LR 3.

For what it is worth, I submit the following:

   The process:

        1.  I have tried everything this forum recommends with some improvement observed, but still sluggish in certain areas.

                   I even have an SSD on order for LR 3 cache storage..
                   Clearly an absurd situation on a system as powerful as mine.
        2.  Slowdown with delays in the adjustment brush, exporting to Photoshop, and moving picture to picture in the Develop module..
        3.  For example, the 8 threads in the core i7-975, would be at 100% CPU when preparing RAW files for transfer to Photoshop CS5.
        4.  I discovered that the i7-975 CPU temps would be extreme during these activities, using a utility called "Speedfan".
        4.  I replaced the stock Intel heat sync with a high quality device and cut my CPU temps in half.
        5.  My preliminary observation is that I now appear to have no LR 3 performance issues with my Core i7-975 system. 
                   No delays with the adjustment brush.
                   The cpu threads are not at 100% when preparing RAW files for Photoshop CS5 anymore.

                   Picture to picture in the develop module has gone from 5 sec to 2 sec.

                   Back to normal ecporting to Photoshop CS5.
                   Everything seems great - as I would expect with a core i7-975 cpu.

   Conclusion:

        1.  I believe that the motherboard throttles down the CPU when it detects high temps.
        2.  A core I7-975 system should not be this sluggish with LR 3 - the motherboard must be throttling the CPU speed down due to the heat.
        2.  As a result, I am convinced that LR3 probably will not run well on older systems with lower performance CPU chips.
        3.  All the suggestions in this forum result in reduced CPU activity which has to at least help, but is not enough in most cases.

   Trying to run LR 3 on anything near Adobe's minimum recommended configuration with any volume of work will, no doubt lead to much frustration.

    I am not trying to say that all of you should check for extreme CPU temps. But my experience with a throttled back CPU and everything else optimized tells me that slower CPUs are probably the core of the problem with LR 3.  Adobe needs to monitor CPU bottlenecks in their code and see where they are doing something excessive.

   This is a preliminary observation, I will post if I discover more or change my mind.

   Any observations from Adobe about LR 3.0 CPU utilization vis-a-vis LR 2.7 for example?

I'm having what I consider to be an opposite experience (knock wood).  I'm on a Macbook Pro 2.1, which a 2.33 Core 2 Duo, with 3GB memory and an upgraded internal hard drive to 7200 RPM.  I am seeing some of the issues associated with the graphics aspects, but even those are infrequent.  In Develop mode, things aren't much different than the beta.  I'm seeing some lag with "some" tools, but not all.  In develop load time for 7D images are proportionally the same (given file size) as 40D images.  From the time I switch to an image to the time it is fully loaded is about 8 seconds, but I am not locked out while it is loading.  I can, for example, go to crop mode, use the straighten tool, etc.  As I said, the brush tools, like gradient, are "twitchy".

Exports are taking longer, but again, I have to attribute some of that to the file size of the 7D images + edits.  I am noticing one thing.  While in Develop mode, in terms of real memory used, LR 3 is hitting about 600 to 800MB.. When not in use it settles back.  I have been doing exports today, and real memory peaked up to about 1.45GB, but is not releasing and staying there.

Images and cache (60GB) are on eSATA attached 7200 Cavier Black drive (via Expresscard 34 eSATA card).  Edits when using the sharpening tools are immediate as are profile changes or Tone sliders, etc.

I do only have Lightroom running so not trying to multi-task, but I have had Firefox up in the background and noticed nothing in the way of any additional stress.  I haven't tried adding some xonxurrent iMovie work in there, which I was doing with LR2.. so that remains to be seen.  🙂

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that performance is 100% of what I had with 2.7, but thank the appropriate diety that I am not amongst those who are pretty dead in the water.  I am at a loss as to why it works well or good on one machine yet others suffer on other seemingly more powerful configs.

Jay S.

Meant to mention also running dual display with LR3 on 24" Dell Ultrasharp at 1920 x 1200

[Guest]

Jay:

  I disagree - You are experiencing the same slow down that I did, as is everyone else.  Many things can exacerbate it so that everyone's experience differs in degree or magmitude, but it is there for all but the fastest systems.

     1.  You say -  'having what I consider to be an opposite experience (knock wood).".   - I disagree.

     2.  For example, you say:  " From the time I switch to an image to the time it is fully loaded is about 8 seconds". 

            My experience was 5+ seconds and now it is 2.

            No matter that you can get into an edit capability while it happens, it should not take 8 seconds.

     3. You say - "As I said, the brush tools, like gradient, are "twitchy"."

            Another indication of the slow down I expieneced, but don't anymore with my i7-975 at full speed.

   I maintain that these "symptoms", are indicative of LR 3.0 not performing up to performance expectations, and that were one to try and focus on the core issue, my experience discussed in the prior email would indicate that CPU power is it.   The rest of the "adjustments" made by posters in this forum ultimately effect CPU usage  and thus can improve performance - but cannot overcome the prime point and that is that LR 3.0 appears to be a CPU hog at times.  The slower the CPU, the worse it should get, although as I said, there are other factors at play as well.

[JayS_In_CT]

sherlocc wrote:

Jay:

  I disagree - You are experiencing the same slow down that I did, as is everyone else.  Many things can exacerbate it so that everyone's experience differs in degree or magmitude, but it is there for all but the fastest systems.

     1.  You say -  'having what I consider to be an opposite experience (knock wood).".   - I disagree.

     2.  For example, you say:  " From the time I switch to an image to the time it is fully loaded is about 8 seconds". 

            My experience was 5+ seconds and now it is 2.

            No matter that you can get into an edit capability while it happens, it should not take 8 seconds.

     3. You say - "As I said, the brush tools, like gradient, are "twitchy"."

            Another indication of the slow down I expieneced, but don't anymore with my i7-975 at full speed.

   I maintain that these "symptoms", are indicative of LR 3.0 not performing up to performance expectations, and that were one to try and focus on the core issue, my experience discussed in the prior email would indicate that CPU power is it.   The rest of the "adjustments" made by posters in this forum ultimately effect CPU usage  and thus can improve performance - but cannot overcome the prime point and that is that LR 3.0 appears to be a CPU hog at times.  The slower the CPU, the worse it should get, although as I said, there are other factors at play as well.

Perhaps my initial statement set the wrong expectation in rereading.  I'm not disagreeing that LR3 needs performance work, not disagreeing at all.  What I am saying is that relative to the beta, I am not seeing a huge difference with the production version.  Some of the differences I see vs. LR 2.7 I can attribute to larger file size with the 7D, as I am seeing longer load time for those files in 2.7 as well.

Comparing my system to yours is somewhat of a tortise vs. the hare (except you'd win the race)  🙂  Again, my point was that I am low on RAM and CPU compared to you, yet my LR3 experience is not out of line with the beta and some portions are in line with the files I'm now processing.  I'm not trying to let Adobe off the hook and I do absolutely think they've got work to do.  Nothing I or they will do will ever get a load time on my system to be that of yours, and I don't expect it to, but I do expect it will get better as they tune LR3.  My major point is that some folks are experiencing far worse performance vs. the beta, and by some accounts show stopping times.  I can operate with this, and that was the "knock wood" I mentioned.

Message was edited by: JayS In CT With regard to the export though (and I know I/O is clearly involved.  I did an export of some 320+ images in one string.  The time from image to image was consistent for the whole period of time for the export.  I would think the CPU would clearly be heating up during that time, but I didn't see any major change in the exports.  Just an added point of information if it helps.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

sherlocc wrote:

     2.  For example, you say:  " From the time I switch to an image to the time it is fully loaded is about 8 seconds". 

            My experience was 5+ seconds and now it is 2.

            No matter that you can get into an edit capability while it happens, it should not take 8 seconds.

Why not?  Basically, it has to render an image from the raw data.  Depending on screen size, that image will be more or less downsampled, but it still has to do it for all the pixels on your screen.  Your 5 seconds to 2 seconds change is likely due to the image already being in the Camera Raw cache from the last test.  If you were to delete that cache, my guess is that it would go back to 5 until the images in question were re-rendered and stored in the cache.

[Gary_Rowe]

I have Win 7 64 with LR3 and 4GB Ram

for me, navigating through a shoot in Loupe view brings LR3's memory usage to around 2.5GB on my system, even if there are other things running. This tends to use up almost all of my physical ram, e.g. 3.8 / 3.9GB, and when it hits 4.0GB everything grinds to a halt ... but if I switch over to the develop module it releases at least a gig, sometimes more, so I have to go to the develop module every 20-30 images to keep things running. I'll be doing the edits soon so this time I will monitor memory usage with the adjustment brush etc - last time I had to keep exiting LR3 and restarting it to keep things moving ..

Gary

[Guest]

Lee Jay:

    Nice try  - but no.  I am now getting less than 2 seconds with pictures not in the cache. and since I installed my SSD this afternoon for the cache, those pictures in the cache seem to be in the half second range.

    Prior to getting my temperatures under control so the CPU was not throttled down, I was getting 5 to 8 seconds rendering pictures consistently.  Probably 5 in the cache and 8 if not - but I didn't really control test the difference.

    In any event, roughly speaking, I would say that the transition picture to picture in the develop module:

     1. was around 8 seconds with a throttled CPU and no cache.

     2. was around 5 seconds with a throttled CPU and in the HDD cache.

     3. is 2 seconds               with full speed  CPU and no cache.

     4. is 1 second                 with full speed  CPu and in the the HDD cache.

     5. is less than 1/2 sec     with full speed  CPU and in the SSD cache.

   Obviously these times are eyeball approximations, but the relationships between them is the point.

   I believe the LR 3.0 problem to be a CPU bound issue that can be mollified somewhat via the "tricks" described in this forum, but that older systems with underpowered CPUs will be etretched significantly regardless of how much RAM, HDD speed, MAC vs Windows, 64 bit versus 32 bit, etc.  Certainly they have their effect, but as an analogy, you can do all the ignition, carburation, body, tire work you want to speed up your car - but you cannot overcome in any significant way an underpowered power plant.

    Exactly what should be considered underpowered with a high powered, high end product like LR is the question?  My guess is that in spite of the fact that performance is in the eye of the beholder and a function of workload - a controled survey of CPU speed correlated against LR performance would probably tell the story.  Remember, again, clearly there no doubt would be exceptions that require further investigation.

    Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, don't really prove a lot, again because of "the eye of the beholder", workload, etc.

    I ask - again - does Adobe have anything to say about this?  How much stress testing did Adobe do with less than optimal configurations?

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

sherlocc wrote:

    I ask - again - does Adobe have anything to say about this?  How much stress testing did Adobe do with less than optimal configurations?

Don't know about Adobe, but I'm running LR 3 on a single-core 1.7GHz Pentium-M laptop with 1GB of RAM and things are more-or-less okay except for those areas with known bugs (like cold-start previews) or heavy-processing (blur gradients, for example).

[dennishh]

I don't know why or how. I have a very robust system with all settings the

same as the beta. I am going back to 2.7. Let me know if you hear anything.

I think this is a major bug.

[dennishh]

Thanks. I have a dual Xeon 2.8 16 gigs of ram. 2.7 runs like a rocket ship.

All SAS raid 0 with e-sata raptors.

[JayS_In_CT]

sherlocc wrote:

Lee Jay:

    Nice try  - but no.  I am now getting less than 2 seconds with pictures not in the cache. and since I installed my SSD this afternoon for the cache, those pictures in the cache seem to be in the half second range.

    Prior to getting my temperatures under control so the CPU was not throttled down, I was getting 5 to 8 seconds rendering pictures consistently.  Probably 5 in the cache and 8 if not - but I didn't really control test the difference.

    In any event, roughly speaking, I would say that the transition picture to picture in the develop module:

     1. was around 8 seconds with a throttled CPU and no cache.

     2. was around 5 seconds with a throttled CPU and in the HDD cache.

     3. is 2 seconds               with full speed  CPU and no cache.

     4. is 1 second                 with full speed  CPu and in the the HDD cache.

     5. is less than 1/2 sec     with full speed  CPU and in the SSD cache.

   Obviously these times are eyeball approximations, but the relationships between them is the point.

   I believe the LR 3.0 problem to be a CPU bound issue that can be mollified somewhat via the "tricks" described in this forum, but that older systems with underpowered CPUs will be etretched significantly regardless of how much RAM, HDD speed, MAC vs Windows, 64 bit versus 32 bit, etc.  Certainly they have their effect, but as an analogy, you can do all the ignition, carburation, body, tire work you want to speed up your car - but you cannot overcome in any significant way an underpowered power plant.

    Exactly what should be considered underpowered with a high powered, high end product like LR is the question?  My guess is that in spite of the fact that performance is in the eye of the beholder and a function of workload - a controled survey of CPU speed correlated against LR performance would probably tell the story.  Remember, again, clearly there no doubt would be exceptions that require further investigation.

    Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, don't really prove a lot, again because of "the eye of the beholder", workload, etc.

    I ask - again - does Adobe have anything to say about this?  How much stress testing did Adobe do with less than optimal configurations?

Sherlocc,

You do realize that there are probably any number of folks who are wondering why you are complaining so loudly.   I think you made your point that Adobe should look into whether or not certain areas of LR 3 are getting CPU bound or driving cycles unncessarily.  If you really want to get Adobe's attention, here is not the place to do it.  You have some empirical data that may of use to Adobe, so you should probably call them and open a problem ticket.  They may want you to collect some data points and supply them.  In the meantime, I'd kill to have your system and response times, but as I said, I am fortunate that I don't have some of the issues that others are having which seem to be an order of magnitude worse than mine, and several orders of magnitude worse than yours.  Just curious, is your system home brew or logo'd?

Jay S.

[Guest]

My system is "home brew", and an attempt at "best of breed" in its components.

What gives you the idea that I am complaining?

I have over 50 years of system development experience and thought maybe my approach to unraveling things like this might be helpful. I have very good and extensive diagnostic skills and experience.

I am trying to help this forum to focus on the idea that this is a CPU bound problem.

I have a real world example of a fix that solved my problem - solving the high temps and thus restoring the CPU to full speed.  The idea is that slower speed CPUs could be overwhelmed by whatever Adobe has done in LR 3.0,  Maybe - just maybe - I am right, and that all the diddling with cache, RAM, etc cannot make up for it.

If you don't think I am being helpful - so be it.

I rarely participate in forums, because it always gets personal at some point.

I am just trying to relate my experience and help.

But I guess I will stop as you point out I have solved my problem, and if the impression is that I am complaining - I will stop and let you guys get back to whatever you want to discuss.

By the way, as Adobe is monitoring this thread I would think that it is the perfect place to "get Adobe's attention".

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

sherlocc wrote:

I am trying to help this forum to focus on the idea that this is a CPU bound problem.

"It's" not, because there is no "it".  There is much more than a single phenomena going on here.  Some problems are most definitely I/O problems (I can prove this).  Other problems are problems of logic (there are examples here).  Still others might be CPU-bound.  But there is no "this" (singlular).

[areohbee]

Lee Jay wrote:

"It's" not, because there is no "it".

Indeed - one should not assume their "it" is the same as anyone elses "it" - I have proven this over and over for myself as have others on this thread and forum.

Rob

[areohbee]

sherlocc,

Adobe may have stopped listening long ago. My experience is that Adobe will make a peep here and there as they're trying to solve stuff, but once they grow silent for long periods of time, its because they stopped listening and are working on a solution - its generally a sign of an impending release. - or at least thats how it seems to me so far. Nevertheless, there are many users that appreciate any light you can shed.

PS - You gotta have a thick skin to hang on this forum for two reasons:

1. Some people are just abusive...

2. Sometimes there is misunderstanding, and everyone who hangs on this forum for long gets a little edgy...

OK, there are probably a lot more than 2 reasons...

.02,

Rob

[JayS_In_CT]

sherlocc wrote:

My system is "home brew", and an attempt at "best of breed" in its components.

What gives you the idea that I am complaining?

I have over 50 years of system development experience and thought maybe my approach to unraveling things like this might be helpful. I have very good and extensive diagnostic skills and experience.

I am trying to help this forum to focus on the idea that this is a CPU bound problem.

I have a real world example of a fix that solved my problem - solving the high temps and thus restoring the CPU to full speed.  The idea is that slower speed CPUs could be overwhelmed by whatever Adobe has done in LR 3.0,  Maybe - just maybe - I am right, and that all the diddling with cache, RAM, etc cannot make up for it.

If you don't think I am being helpful - so be it.

I rarely participate in forums, because it always gets personal at some point.

I am just trying to relate my experience and help.

But I guess I will stop as you point out I have solved my problem, and if the impression is that I am complaining - I will stop and let you guys get back to whatever you want to discuss.

By the way, as Adobe is monitoring this thread I would think that it is the perfect place to "get Adobe's attention".

Sherlocc,

Need to lighten up a little.  The smiley face was there for a reason.  There was certainly no offense intended.  The point I was trying to make is that people would "love" to have an issue of 1 second load times for images.  As for relaying the information to Adobe, sure, one of the Adobe folks, like Melissa, may pick it up, but I was being sincere when I said you should report it to Adobe more formally.  You sounded like you were able to get to some data that may be of value.  Posting it here, in a user to user forum doesn't guarantee it will reach the right folks at Adobe.

I also have to agree though with one of the other follow up posts that there are a lot of moving parts in Lightroom.  History has shown that there is no one fix that opens the gates of performance.  It has always been a methodical tweaking and poking at video support, i/o support, memory utilization, cpu, etc.  There were clearly times when an update came out fixing one thing and breaking something in a totally different area.  With you system and the specs you have, the work you did on the CPU seemed to have a major impact.  That doesn't necessarily guarantee that it will have the same impact on someone else's system where there are other issues at play.

But I go back to what I said with sincerity..  Call Adobe, get a problem report into them.  The do have remote access supported if there is a need and you want to share access to the system, etc.  You do the product (and us) far more good getting the data to the folks that can use it, then having lengthy discussions about it here.  It is a good point to know, but there isn't much we can do with it until and unless Adobe finds the issue and creates a fix.

Jay S.

P.S.  Sounds like a best of breed home made..  sometimes the best way to go..  may cost a little more but you know every nut, bolt and electron in it.  All my tower Windows machines are home made.  The Macbook Pro isn't 

[Guest]

There needs to be a way to remove one from this lis. I have disabled e-mails in three different places but none seem to have helped. Could a moderator either fix that feature or close this topic so that we can take a break from the deluge of e-mails. According to the settings, I should not be getting any e-mails but I do. If someone knows how to do this please let me know. I disabled it on the top right, in "Your stuff" and my preferences I believe. Is there some other place where I need to go to stop the e-mails? Here are the screen captures of my settings (I send these with apologies as they do not pertain to the discussion, but...):

[areohbee]

It seems as though once you've posted a reply, your screwed - so to speak. A work-around until its fixed: configure a subject-based rule that tosses "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow??" messages in the can.

-R

[JayS_In_CT]

areohbee wrote:

It seems as though once you've posted a reply, your screwed - so to speak. A work-around until its fixed: configure a subject-based rule that tosses "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow??" messages in the can.

-R

Rob / Acekin,

I just used the one at the top of the thread to stop email notifications and have not received any of the latest.  Maybe one of those clear the browser cache issues. 🙂  Seriously, turning off email notification is working here so there must be something else letting the updates through.

Jay S.

[areohbee]

I think the one at the top of the thread turns off all notifications though - not just the ones for this thread, no?

[camerahans]

gee can we have this thread back on the topic instead

on mail notifications?

[areohbee]

Gettin' off the freakin' overdose list is quite on topic for some of us - but don't you worry -  there will be more about "Why Lightroom 3 is so slow" - for those of you with a higher threshold...

[Guest]

So, anyone watch the Ghana/Uruguay game? Bit of a heartbreaker, that one.

Anyway, what were we talking about?

[areohbee]

clvrmnky wrote:

So, anyone watch the Ghana/Uruguay game? Bit of a heartbreaker, that one.

Missed that one - too bad... ...

clvrmnky wrote:

Anyway, what were we talking about?

Why Lightroom is so slow - to summarize:

Lightroom is slow for a lot of people, not so slow for others (unless they're lieing), slow in different ways for different people, and there are things you can do, but they don't really work very well for most people, and not for very long anyway, and oops - they don't even work for me either - sorry about that... Adobe is aware that there are problems, but probably don't have a clue how deep and wide they go and it will probably take them until version 3.9 to get them "all" quashed... - but 3.1 should be out soon, and will fix some of the problems for some of the people, and cause a few new ones for the people with bad karma due to saying bad things about Adobe...

That's what,

Rob