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

[Guest]

Jasonized wrote:

Sigh.

No, you're missing an entire thread of discussion:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659662?start=0&tstart=0

Cheers!

** sigh ** REALLY?...wow.

Thanks for the link, sorry I missed it - cruising through the forums, "sticky" filters" doesn't jump out as much as you think it would....

I'm a relative newcomer to this forum, and it seems like patience isn't a strong suit for many users here...sure doesn't make one want to join in any discussions for fear we'll offend someone...

[n781lc]

LydellPhoto wrote:
I'm a relative newcomer to this forum, and it seems like patience isn't a strong suit for many users here...sure doesn't make one want to join in any discussions for fear we'll offend someone...

Hey Lydel, don't let the sarcasm of some keep you from benefitting from the many.  There are only a few who seem to consider their "expertise' something that sets them above the rest.  Now retired but as a former employer it was my sad obligation to suggest these types would be happier somewhere else. 

Personally, I and I'm sure I speak for many, many others have benefitted greatly from browsing the discussions as a learning tool.  Every question has been answered even though there is the occasional "jerk."

And THIS thread is the longest I have ever seen.  Anyone starting at the beginning and reading all the posts would also have to be retired.

Ed

[Guest]

Ed,

Thanks!!

I've been on a lot of photography forums, and am always amazed when people seem to go out of their way to keep the "club" closed...

I'm not retired, but I did read through the entire thread before I first posted a few weeks ago, and since then have been keeping up via email....I'm not retired, but REALLY needed to know if there were any answers in the thread. I wanted to read it all the way through before I posted as I wanted to be as up as possible on the discussion. Aince I'm a photographer, and not a programmer or computer guru some of the discussions were over my head.

I'm hoping that with all the different threads and discussions Adobe will be coming out with something soon to keep the masses (that would be us....) happy!

Mark

[DavePinMinn]

>I'm hoping that with all the different threads and discussions Adobe  will be coming out with something soon to keep the masses (that would be  us....) happy!

As far as "happy", I suspect the ship has already sailed on that one.  The problems have cost too many in this topic too much in time, aggravation, and in some cases, revenue, for there to be happiness.  But a real fix for some of the more egregious problems will hopefully get the masses (that would be us....) to put away the ropes, tar, and feathers.

[skyrunr]

I had the same problem, Windows users should use the 32bit version.  I could not use the 64bit version on a Quad Core Dell with 8GB or RAM running on SSD hard drives.  The clone tool would spike my processor usage and prevent the mouse from moving.  Not cool.

[fwampler]

skyrunr wrote:

I had the same problem, Windows users should use the 32bit version.  I could not use the 64bit version on a Quad Core Dell with 8GB or RAM running on SSD hard drives.  The clone tool would spike my processor usage and prevent the mouse from moving.  Not cool.

My 64 bit win 7 Quad Core HP Q9300 8 gb mem works very fast converting my 50d raw images. The Q9300 is just a medium fast processor(s). No problems at all. My point is that it is hard to generalize about 64 bit systems and tell people not to use them.

[skyrunr]

@fwampler  Sorry that was my bad, I meant the 32bit version of Lightroom 3 launcher, NOT the entire operating system which I agree, would be rather silly.   The clone tool is not functional using the 64bit Lightroom launcher, but it works fine when you use the 32bit version.  You have to install them separately, but can switch between them as needed.  I couldn't find ANY other solution to this problem ANYWHERE so I had to share it.  Adobe certainly needs to address this issue.

[fwampler]

Sorry, it's a long thread and I probably read too fast.

-

---

*Fred *

[www_iqtestforfree_net]

I'm using Win7 64bits with a quad-code laptop and 4Gb of RAM. I'm using latest

NVIDIA driver directly installed from NVIDIA web site.

I have no slowness, LR3 is quite fast for every thing I ask him to do.

Are you using the lastest driver for your graphic card? It has been suggested many times

so maybe it is the way to fix this slowness...

http://www.iqtestforfree.net

http://www.iqtest.vn

[Guest]

Did anyone try the 3.2 update yet? Does it improve the speed?

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

Yes, I have downloaded and installed 3.2RC...   Preview speed is fast as before now, I don't wait forever when

looking through images.

However, I'm reporting a bug that memory is still out of control...  20 minutes of browsing images, updating keywords, and such pushed me over 9gig of memory usage, and started swapping.

I  have not tried any of the adjustment brushes yet.

Cheers!

[ChBr02]

>>"Yes, I have downloaded and installed 3.2RC...   "<<

Okay,  I've looked and can't find 3.1, 3.2, or 3.2RC; or anything beyond the original 3.0.  From within LR3, I have tried to update, but it says there are no updates available.

Link please.......

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

Better yet, let's start a new thread (for those trying it)..

For those that want to try it, here's the main thread, started by Tom, with appropriate links.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/697207?tstart=0

[ChBr02]

>>"Better yet, let's start a new thread (for those trying it).."<<

Thanks Jasonized!

Is an "RC" (Release Candidate) the same as a Beta, that is; if I have serious problems, will you guys be calling me stupid???

BTW, At some point about a year ago, my WD Raptors (10K) in a RAID 0 (Talk about Stupid--I now use RAID 1) gave up the ghost.  In my restore procedure, I forgot about checking my boot.ini file and just realized that the /3GB /USERVA=2900 switches that were in there originally, were gone.

Point is that I put those back in, although according to you guys, on a 32 bit PC, that won't help LR3.  In addition, I also deleted the Preferences file as suggested by several on here.  The prior suggestions from Mac users weren't all that helpful for a Windows configuration, but I figured it out.  Result was that there was a noticeable--if not remarkable--increase in speed.  It is still unacceptable, but it is at least an improvement.  Perhaps in the next upgrade, we should have the option of not installing the Preferences file, and then let LR3.? recreate it. 

[Hal P Anderson]

You really don't want to run with /3GB. A lot of programs (including LR) don't play nicely with it, and fail in non-graceful ways. There have been users on this forum with LR problems that went away when they removed the /3GB switch. And it's true, on 32-bit windows, LR limits itself to less than a gigabyte of memory, so setting the switch won't help.

Hal

p.s. I, at least, won't call you stupid for using the release candidate.

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

Hey ChBr02!

   In most companies, RC does stand for Release Candidate, which means it's on the fast track for the next release.  It's not *exactly* a beta, in the normal meaning of the term... Think of it more like a "pre-release version", and if nobody complains about it, and they don't fix more bugs, that's what would get released.  A Beta version usually means more along the lines of much earlier testing, trying out features, etc. May not have a lot in common with what actually gets released.   At least, that's how I've always seen it used.  Your experience may vary.

And no, I wouldn't think anyone would call you stupid for using a Release Candidate...   I certainly won't, as I'm using it to fix some annoying bugs!

Cheers!

[JayS_In_CT]

ChBr02 wrote:

> BTW, At some point about a year ago, my WD Raptors (10K) in a RAID 0 (Talk about Stupid--I now use RAID 1) gave up the ghost.  In my restore procedure, I forgot about checking my boot.ini file and just realized that the /3GB /USERVA=2900 switches that were in there originally, were gone.

Just curious, why did you consider the RAID 0 to be stupid?

Jay S.

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

My feelings about Raid 0 possibly are the same... Raid 0 offers no fall back (don't know how it got labled

"raid"!)...  Raid 1, 3, 5 all offer redundancy, 0 only offers speed (well, and more disk space), but no redundancy.  If you don't understand what that means, you might be tempted to use it thinking you're protected by "Raid" everyone is talking about.

My .02gbp

Cheers!

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Raid 0 is the only thing we use anymore because none of the other ones are truely redundant anyway.  We've have RAID systems that could supposedly lose three drives without losing data and we've lost everything with one failed component (power supply or controller).  So, now we use RAID 0 for speed and size, and mirror the entire volume to another device.

[MikeLeone]

On 8/10/2010 10:40 AM, Lee Jay had this to say:

>

Raid 0 is the only thing we use anymore because none of the other ones are truely redundant anyway. We've have RAID systems that could supposedly lose three drives

Lose 3 drives? RAID 6 will allow loss of 2 drives (double parity).

I've never seen the triple parity, altho I'm sure it exists somewhere ...

without losing data and we've lost everything with one failed component (power supply or controller).

Depends on the controller - I had a Dell controller fail more than once,

and it just read the array config off the drives themselves, and we were

up an running. But those are more enterprise-class controllers.

So, now we use RAID 0 for speed and size, and mirror the entire volume to another device.

So you use RAID 0+1.

[arnelg]

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_3.2

To those who are still using LR 3, I hope you can give us some feedback here if LR 3 is now up to speed with this 3.2 update . Perhaps, I can upgrade now.

Thank you.

[JayS_In_CT]

arnelg wrote:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Lightroom_3.2

To those who are still using LR 3, I hope you can give us some feedback here if LR 3 is now up to speed with this 3.2 update . Perhaps, I can upgrade now.

Thank you.

I still have the rendering issue in develop on hi-res monitors (1920x1200), but it does appear to be much more responsive in many ways.  I don't know exactly what issues you were experiencing.

Jay S.

[JayS_In_CT]

Jasonized wrote:

My feelings about Raid 0 possibly are the same... Raid 0 offers no fall back (don't know how it got labled

"raid"!)...  Raid 1, 3, 5 all offer redundancy, 0 only offers speed (well, and more disk space), but no redundancy.  If you don't understand what that means, you might be tempted to use it thinking you're protected by "Raid" everyone is talking about.

My .02gbp

Cheers!

Jason,

Thanks.. I understand the various +'s and -'s of RAID (didn't mean to go off topic) and tend to think along the lines that Lee Jay posted, which is to use RAID 0 for speed and capacity then backup the data, of course there is an inherent risk associated with anything new since the backup.

Jay S.

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

JayS In CT wrote:

Thanks.. I understand the various +'s and -'s of RAID (didn't mean to go off topic) and tend to think along the lines that Lee Jay posted, which is to use RAID 0 for speed and capacity then backup the data, of course there is an inherent risk associated with anything new since the backup.

Jay S.

No worries.  I hadn't planned on running off topic so much either, but...

I used to use Raid 0+1, as pointed out elsewhere,  which didn't do me a lot of good, personally.  So now, I have my system disks Raid1, my data is hardware Raid5, and I have a couple of NAS's that are Raid 5 for backups. 

So far, data has survived multiple moves, disk drops, etc, no issues.

Cheers!

[DJ-G]

I use RAID 0 for system and temp / scratch volumes, and RAID 10 for data and data image backup. System RAID 0, app temp RAID 0, and data image backup RAID 10 are in one (onboard) controller, while data RAID 10, system image backup RAID 10 and system temp RAID 0 are in a PC-IX hardware RAID controller. I have never lost data, in spite of numerous bluescreens (finding stable overclock ) and an occasional drive gone bad.

But redundancy is no substitute for backups. I do find RAID 10 faster than 5, almost as fast as 0, but redundant. Still not as fast as SSD though :-).