Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

[Tom Hogarty]

Please use this discussion topic for your feedback on Lightroom 3.3 RC and the final Lightroom 3.3 release when it becomes available.  The Lightroom team has tried very hard to extract useful feedback from the following discussion topic but due to the length and amount of chatter we need to start a new, more focused thread.  Please post specifics about your experience and be sure to include information about your hardware configuration.

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

[TK2142]

I just made an observation:

Sliders in the adjustment brush or graduated filter panel react to "up/down" key presses, but only if I "activate" the sliders by clicking on the slider knob. In other words, only the "Exposure" slider receives focus by hovering over it, the other sliders require a click on the knob (clicks anywhere else, e.g., on the slider title don't help). The latter behaviour is of course suboptimal as one often will slight know the slider knob out of position by clicking on it.

Sliders in the spot removal panel work as expected.

In the Red Eye reduction tool (pretty slow to "lock", I don't use it so I don't know whether that's the expected speed or not) none of the sliders receive focus by hovering.

Why isn't the same (common) code used for all of these?

[kaimcalpine]

I'm looking for help about persistent performance issues I'm having with Lr v3.3.

I've been using Lr since v1 and have loved the program but I continually have performance issues with v3.3.

Description of the problem:

I'm editing CR2 files that have been converted to DNG. They're all large raw files from a Canon 5D mk2. Currently I'm working on a brand new 15" MBP (core i7, 8GB ram, 1GB dedicated graphics memory, etc) but have also experience the same issues on my 13" MBP - two fully capable, functioning machines. Lr v3.3 regularly freezes up while working in the Development module. Usually seems to be when I'm using the lens correction tools. Once the Lr freezes up and I see the mac pinwheel of death, it's all over. Force quit, restart, new catalog, accessing the raw files for the local drive, etc nothing works. I've uninstalled Lr and reinstalled yet the problem has popped up again.

This is crippling to my workflow. I cannot consistently edit because Lr locks up. Is anyone else experiencing a similar problem?

Please advise.

[DdeGannes]

Quote "LR 3.3 regularly freezes up while working in the Development module. Usually seems to be when I am using the lens correction tools."

Maybe you could give a little more detail e.g Working with individual files? applying correction to a batch of files? Manual corrections or auto?.

[kaimcalpine]

Sure.

It's very perplexing but seems to happen most regularly to manual lens corrections made to a single photo. The troubling part is that it's an intermittent problem. Some files work great, others are just trouble. All the files I'm editing are from the same 5D mk2. All files are imported after being converted to .dng.

As recently as today, I found that only one file made Lr freeze up. If I moved on to another file in the catalog, Lr would function normally. I have experienced this freezing up problem on different machines and different catalogs.

[DdeGannes]

Maybe you could consider reporting the details using the form which can be obtained at this site.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

The more details you can provide will assist the troubleshooters to track the problem and make corrections to the program.

[web-weaver]

I can give you the following very general "rules" to speed-up LR and avoid "freezing".

1) Make your Cache very large - mine is set at 75 GB. Set size in Preferences > File Handling.

2) Have the Catalog and your Cache on a fast internal drive but preferably on a different drive than where LR resides. Do NOT put the Catalog or cache on an external HD - the connection is too slow, particularly with USB drives.

3) Play around with the preview size in Catalog Settings > File Handling. This is a weird one and there was some discussion on this forum. Since I set my preview size ot 2048 pixels, I experienced a better performance.

4) Defragment your HD often and leave lots of free space particularly on your drive where the Catalog and the Cache are.

6) Close all unnecessary programs that run in the background.

7) In Catalog settings > Metadata do NOT check "write Changes into XMP" - this slowed my Develop module significantly. If you want XMP files do it via Metadata > Save Metadata to File or short Ctrl?Cmd. + "S".

Hope this helps.

WW

[kaimcalpine]

web-weaver,

Good stuff - Thanks. I'm going to play around with suggestions.

[Shocker2000]

Just remember - if you're running on a SSD there is no need to defrag.

[web-weaver]

I'd like to add one more suggestion since you have an i7 processor - although I don't know if it is equipped with Hyper-Threading.

One poster in this forum said that LR performance got better after he/she turned Hyper-Threading off.

WW

[thewhitedog]

The i7 used in Macs does offer hyper-threading, though I don't how you can turn it off. But that's a good point: since hyper-threading causes problems in Windows it might do so as well on the Mac. Which raises the question, why can't Lightroom handle hyper-threading, since it is a feature of many modern CPUs?

[web-weaver]

thewhitedog wrote:

The i7 used in Macs does offer hyper-threading, though I don't how you can turn it off. But that's a good point: since hyper-threading causes problems in Windows it might do so as well on the Mac. Which raises the question, why can't Lightroom handle hyper-threading, since it is a feature of many modern CPUs?

I don't have answers for these questions. I don't have a hyper-threading processor. In fact I have a Pentium dual-core processor that is now more than 5 years old with 4 GB of RAM, and - strangely enough - although LR 3.4 is certainly not super-fast on this machine, it's is now quite workable, and that goes also for the clone tool.

Go, figure.

My HD where I put the Catalog and the Cache hast 180 GB of free space.

WW

[Thomas JS Kane]

Thank you web weaver

I will try that

Sean

[thewhitedog]

@ web-weaver: Very good summary. Keep up the good work.

[MojaMike]

I'm having major performance issues on my system with LR 3.3 & LR 3.4rc. I have looked through the previous posts, but haven't found anything that looks like this. If somebody has seen and resolved similar problems, please point me in the right direction.

When start Lightroom & click IMPORT, here is what I get:

• Select Source screen @ 0:31 (31 secs).
• Select Source screen is populated (hdd's shown) @ 2:17 (1m,46s).
• My 'Pictures' folder finaly displayed @ 2:45 (28s).

Then, after clicking cancel, it took 26 seconds to get back to the main Library screen, and ready to import again.

So far I've tried uninstalling, cleared all Lightroom registry entries, and did a fresh install. Same results.

All of my other apps, including Photoshop, work fine and perform well. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

PS:  Here is the paste from my System Info dialog:

-----

Lightroom version: 3.4 RC [733717]

Operating system: Windows Vista Service Pack 2 (Build 6002)

Version: 6.0 [6002]

Application architecture: x64

System architecture: x64

Physical processor count: 4

Processor speed: 3.2 GHz

Built-in memory: 8189.2 MB

Real memory available to Lightroom: 8189.2 MB

Real memory used by Lightroom: 131.1 MB (1.6%)

Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 124.6 MB

Memory cache size: 0.0 MB

System DPI setting: 96 DPI

Desktop composition enabled: No

Displays: 1) 1920x1200

-----

MSI MS-7577 Motherboard

AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor

ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2 Graphics Card w/ 1-GB RAM

[thewhitedog]

There are some signs of trouble in the statistics you included. The real memory, virtual memory and memory cache size dedicated to Lightroom are unnaturally small. If these numbers are anywhere near accurate they would by themselves explain the slow performance. The question then becomes, why are real and virtual memory in particular not higher? The only thing that comes immediately to mind is that perhaps your hard drive is almost full, or is seriously fragmented, or both. But this would only explain the problem with virtual memory. It leaves the question of real memory unresolved. Are there any other applications on your computer that have performance issues? What memory load do they customarily impose? If there are no problems or similar miserly memory allocation statistics with any other app, then the problem would seem to lie with Lightroom. If other apps have similar issues, then you may have some bad RAM.

We also don't know what your import settings are. But you should have found suggestions on how to optimize these in this forum.

[MojaMike]

@thewhitedog: Thanks for the quick reply.

I haven't had any problems with my other applications. This system typically handles everyting I throw at it with ease. Everything from the Creative Suite runs smoothly. I use Photoshop more than the rest, followed by Illustrator.

The values for memory usage in my first post were with no photos imported. After I imported about 70 photos, the values changed as follows:

• Real memory used by Lightroom: 673.6 MB (8.2%)
• Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 699.4 MB
• Memory cache size: 1429.6 MB

As for the HDD's, I have 3 internal SATA drives. The C: drive has 250GB free, and the other two each have over 1TB free. They were all defraged a couple of days ago. I just ran in-depth memory diags and no errors were found.

I'm pretty sure I have the most recommended import settings, but I will double-check.

[thewhitedog]

It would seem, then, that you are among the many Windows users who have posted here who have serious performance problems with Lightroom 3 with no apparent hardware related cause (most had no such problems on the same hardware with earlier versions of Lightroom). Because the 3.4 RC did not resolve these issues, many of us have lost faith that Adobe is taking the matter seriously. The list of fixes the RC addressed was particularly meager. I've been roundly criticized here (and probably will be again) for laying the blame for this paucity of improvements at Adobe's doorstep. But the proof is in the pudding - and this pudding is demonstrably flat. Ragging on me won't change that simple fact.

Sorry I have nothing more useful to suggest. You'll notice that no one else has as yet said anything at all - no doubt because no answers to the questions you raise have been found. There have been many suggestions for tweaking Lightroom's performance; you'll find a good summary by web-weaver a few posts back - I'll copy them here so you don't have to go looking for them:

"I can give you the following very general "rules" to speed-up LR and avoid "freezing".

1) Make your Cache very large - mine is set at 75 GB. Set size in Preferences > File Handling.

2) Have the Catalog and your Cache on a fast internal drive but preferably on a different drive than where LR resides. Do NOT put the Catalog or cache on an external HD - the connection is too slow, particularly with USB drives.

3) Play around with the preview size in Catalog Settings > File Handling. This is a weird one and there was some discussion on this forum. Since I set my preview size ot 2048 pixels, I experienced a better performance.

4) Defragment your HD often and leave lots of free space particularly on your drive where the Catalog and the Cache are.

6) Close all unnecessary programs that run in the background.

7) In Catalog settings > Metadata do NOT check "write Changes into XMP" - this slowed my Develop module significantly. If you want XMP files do it via Metadata > Save Metadata to File or short Ctrl?Cmd. + "S"."

[ChBr02]

@thewhitedog

Thanks whitedog, Your views coincide with mine. Thanks for reposting these suggestions. There was one more back in the early days of Lr3.0 Performance Feedback that had to do with deleting a certain file/s and letting Lightroom regenerate it. It did help some in whichever version I was running at the time. My caution (I am cautious) was to rename the file/s) instead of deleting them. As the version progressed and I experienced more slow performance problems, I tried this once again to no avail; but it might be worth tying. If someone, who doesn't have OTD, remembers what that file/s were, could you please repost if you think it still makes a difference? Perhaps it only made a difference if the file/s had been generated by Lr2.7.

Questions about the General Rules:

1) Will making the Cache very large have any effect on jpg’s or will it just help raw files?

2) My external drive/s has faster data transfer than my internal drives; eSATA2 vs SATA1. I do not want to trust my Catalog to a drive that might be offline, but what about assigning the Cache to that drive?

Charlie

[thewhitedog]

@ ChBr02: To answer your questions -

1.) It's my understanding that the cache only affects RAW files, not JPEGs. However, that is a distinction usually made because Lightroom uses JPEG for previews which it keeps in the Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata file; if you import JPEGs to process in Lightroom (as I often do) I'm not sure how Lightroom handles them, whether they are placed in the RAW cache or not. From the dates on the .dat files in my cache, however, it appears that my most recent imports, which are JPEGs, are not included there. Whereas, the date on the Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata file is current.

2.) Putting your cache on a faster external drive will help, in theory; not so much, in my opinion, because the drive is faster as because you won't be accessing your catalog and your cache simultaneously on the same drive, which is decidedly inefficient. Having them on separate drives means your system can read and write to them both at the same time, without hammering your internal drive excessively. Putting the cache on a separate internal drive would provide much the same benefit and you wouldn't have to worry about the drive not being online. It's up to you which issue concerns you most, drive speed or drive availability. Of course web-weaver suggested using fast internal drives rather than an external drive, but you don't have optimum internal drives so the issue for you is muddier. It also depends on the bus connection of your external drives - as he says, USB drives are slow. If you have FireWire 800 or eSATA connections, your external drive might give better performance. Try copying a large file (several hundred MBs) and/or a large folder of smaller files to your different drives and clock the transfer times. This will give you a rough idea of their actual performance, as opposed to their theoretical performance, which is almost never accurate.

Hope this helps.

[ChBr02]

@thewhitedog

Thanks, I never noticed any difference by increasing the cache size. You do make a good point about the bus speed however. I could actually find a place internally for a connection to my SATA2 card, but if it is limited by the bus, that might not help. My OS drive is a WD Raptor, but it's getting a little cramped. Guess I'm going to have to spring for a couple of those 500 Megabyte Raptors. I do have three other internals but only at 7200RPM and SATA1.

I will do the testing to see how much difference there is between internal SATA1 and external eSATA2.

Charlie

[areohbee]

In case this helps make it any clearer: ACR cache is for raws only (and develop mode only). It stores only the most baseline info for converting the raw data to rgb (losslessly, for dev mode). It is independent of any profile selected or edits applied and it never changes.

I'd be curious if people see a develop mode switching speed increase when develop mode baseline info is in the ACR cache vs. not.

Note: Lr caches the last 3-4 images you've visited in ram - so that doesn't count.

To test:

Delete your ACR cache, then measure the time it takes for the loading indicator to be extinquished when switching to an image in dev mode that is not one you've visited in the last 3 or 4 times. It will not be cached in ram nor on disk (acr cache).

Then, render a bunch of 1:1 previews (which creates ACR cache entries for dev mode, along with the lib previews).

Again try switching to the newly rendered images in dev mode (that you have not visited in the last 3-4 times). They will not be cached in ram, but should be in the ACR cache.

Any difference in how long it takes before the loading indicator is extinquished?

I've heard some people say its a little faster, some say its not any faster at all, and some say its way faster - how about for you?

And, if you are game, repeat this exercise with different 'Preview Size' settings in preferences. Again, some have found this makes a little difference, some say no difference, and some say "big difference".

PS - I have no idea why preview size settings affect ACR cache entry size, but it does. I really dont have a good idea what's in those acr cache entries at all.

I'd also love to know what the size of your acr cache entries are for each setting of preview size. This is another thing that people are reporting bizarre number for different cameras - how about yours???

Thanks,

R

[thewhitedog]

@ ChBr02: If you've got an internal SATA II connection on the card, an internal SATA II drive connected to the card will give you SATA II performance. PCIx and Express (I don't know which you have) are capable of much faster data speeds than the SATA I bus on your motherboard. So go ahead and hook up a new drive to it if you've got the space to install one. Alternatively, if you are cramped for internal drive bays, you could replace one of your internal SATA I drives and connect it to the card. While you're at it, get at least a 1TB drive; they're not much more expensive than smaller ones and you won't have to worry about space for a long time.

Indeed, if you want to ramp up your system's performance without buying a new computer or replacing the motherboard, it wouldn't hurt to transfer your C drive to a new internal SATA II drive. In the same vain, if you have any free PCI slots, another SATA II card would enable you to replace another of your internal drives as well. The advantage to migrating to these faster drives is that, when you finally do get a new computer, you can easily move the drives over with no loss of performance or on your investment.

[thewhitedog]

@ ChBr02: I forgot to answer your question about what files to rebuild to potentially improve Lightroom's performance. That would be the Lightroom 3 Catalog.lrcat file. At the same time you will reconstitute the Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata file. I recommend saving your existing copies in case you need to revert to them. These files are - or should be - in the oldest folder in the Lightroom>Backups folder. I don't know where the Backups folder is located in Windows, but on the Mac the default location is in the Users>username>Pictures>Lightroom folder.

The simplest way to go about this would be to just create a new catalog file in Lightroom. There are two ways to do it: 1.) In the File menu in Lightroom the first item is New Catalog.... Select this and in the subsequent window give your new catalog a name: It can be the same name as the old one, Lightroom 3 Catalog as long as it goes in a new folder - Lightroom will create a new folder for the new catalog with the same name as the catalog; the default location for catalogs is in the Backups folder, but some people have placed them elsewhere. I assume that, after doing so, backups still go in the existing Backups folder, but I haven't tested this myself. I'm sure someone here can correct me if I'm mistaken. 2.) Or you can hold down the Option (Control on the PC?) key when you launch Lightroom and you will get a dialog with the choice to create a new catalog. Once this is done, carefully go over your catalog settings to optimize them as best you can and start importing your image files again. This will take some time because Lightroom has to create new previews for every image you import.

Some people have reported performance improvements after going through this procedure. You can test it by importing a limited number of images at first and then doing some editing. If performance is noticeably improved, you can proceed to import the rest of your images. If you see no significant improvement, you can revert to your old catalog, no harm done (to revert, or choose any other catalog - some people have many - go again to the File menu in Lightroom; the second item down is Open Catalog.... After selecting your old [or other] catalog, Lightroom will restart with the newly selected catalog. You can also use the Option/Control key when starting Lightroom to select your old catalog; this may save the few seconds it takes Lightroom to restart using the in-app method).

Anyway, I welcome any corrections or additions to the procedure I have described. I'm sure there are people here with much more experience managing catalogs than I have.

[MojaMike]

Thanks, thewhitedog, I was just gonna go looking for those.

Well, after checking that I had those bases covered, I went ahead a bumped up my Camera RAW cache settings, just in case. Still didn't see any improvement with the very slow movement getting to the import screen. So I googled around some more, and a lot of the hits I found were with folks having trouble getting LR to import from their card readers. So....I decided to disconnect my internal multi card reader, and....Son-of-a-Gun!

The import screen comes up a whole lot quicker with the card reader disconnected!  And after I reconnct the card reader to my motherboard, I get the big delay with the import screen again. How does that make any sense?

So...What does that tell me? That LR is seeing these removable disks on this USB hub, and is polling each one of them trying to figure out if there is really no media there or not?  I don't know. But it makes a big difference when the card reader is disconnected.

On the other hand, Photoshop, Illustrator, Bridge, and all of my other apps, don't care about these card slots until I try to select one of them, or click one of them by mistake. And if there is no media installed in them, Windows will pop-up a dialog and give me the option to insert some media, or cancel.

Anybody know of a workaround?

[thewhitedog]

@ MojaMike: That's an interesting amplification of the card reader phenomenon. I remember seeing reports that Lightroom couldn't read data from flash memory very well, but I hadn't noticed the point that importing from any source is hampered by the very presence of a card reader, apparently even without a card in it - if I read you correctly. While an explanation for this problem may be hard to pin down, it does offer a very simple work-around. Of course, if your card reader is internal, disconnecting it is not a simple task. An external reader, however, is easy to deal with. Indeed, if I had a PC with an internal card reader and it was slowing Lightroom down dramatically, I'd go ahead and disconnect it and get an external reader that would be easier to manage. Please correct me if I misconstrue your meaning: I'm not clear if the problem arises with the presence of an empty card reader as well as with a loaded one. If it is just an issue when there is a card in the reader, then no disconnection would be necessary. All that would be required is to eject the card. If the reader itself is the source of the problem, that's a more complex issue to unwind.