This conversation has been locked.

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

New Here ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

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

FYI, I need to lock this thread and start a new thread because I fear that customers will attempt to share valuable feedback in this discussion and it has become extremely difficult for the Lightroom team to follow the lengthy and increasingly chatty conversation.  Please use the following forum topic to discuss the specifics of your feedback on Lightroom 3.3.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/760245?tstart=0

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

Views

256.2K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

More information.  Slow loading thumbs when?  On what OS?  On what machine?  How many images in your catalog?  How many in your source?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It is slow loading thumbnails in the grid view of the library.

I am running windows 7 home premium on an ASUS N61Vn with intel core 2 duo 2.53GHz, 4GB of ram and an nvidia geforce gt 220m 1GB graphics card.

there are 16661 images in my catalog.mainly JPEGs.

I open the program and see grey boxes ( some other colours where they have had a label in Lr 2.7) where the images should be in the grid view, I click one and a bunch appear, but when I go to click on some more blanks, the program does nothing but show me the images number in the catalog. This does change for a long time.

I attached an image so you can see what it looks like. (use a 16in monitor and a 14in)

Untitled-1.jpg

Hope this helps.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Okay, try this.  Open the application and just wait for all the thumbs to load and all hard drive activity to stop.  This could take a while in some cases (minutes).  Once that happens, exit the application and re-load it.  My guess is that it will be spectacularly faster on the second attempt.

If so, close all your folders using alt-click which will close the folder and all of its subfolders.  Select a source that doesn't have any images and exit.  Reboot and relaunch.  Once the app is open, try selecting a source with some images and let me know what happens.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 30, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

"I open the program and see grey boxes ( some other colours where they  have had a label in Lr 2.7) where the images should be in the grid view,  I click one and a bunch appear, but when I go to click on some more  blanks, the program does nothing but show me the images number in the  catalog. This does change for a long time."

I had similar issue when my Lightroom cache was located on SSD drive. The particular SSD drive I have is very fast in various tests, but apparently does not like if data are accessed simultaneously from several applications or application threads. Moving the cache to another drive helped a lot. If you don't use SSD drives but have more than one HD, check if your energy saving mode is not set to spin down hard drives that are not in use.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jun 30, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LR3 seems to need to re-create the thumbnails from scratch after my PC has been off for an extended period of time such as overnight and this still happens only when they are on screen. The problem seems to be related to the program's slowness in populating the fields in both the left and right panels. This is my only real complaint about performance in either the Library or Develop modules.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Participant ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

> I had similar issue when my Lightroom cache was located on SSD drive.

Where does one specify the location of the LR cache? Or do you mean the ACR cache?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

phototrek wrote:

> I had similar issue when my Lightroom cache was located on SSD drive.

Where does one specify the location of the LR cache? Or do you mean the ACR cache?

It's the ACR cache, used by both LR and ACR. It holds partly-rendered versions of your images to save time in Develop mode. It is not used (AFAIK) in Library mode which uses the contents of the previews folders. It can be set to a minimum of 1GB or up to 200GB. With a fast processor, I don't see much advantage in having the image in the cache or not in the cache. With slow processors, there can be a time-saving in waiting for the rendered image to appear on-screen. When the cache is full, it deletes the oldest files to make space for the new. Unfortunately IMO you can't turn it off, so it is something else that has to run in the background.

Bob Frost

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's the ACR cache, used by both LR and ACR. It holds partly-rendered versions of your images to save time in Develop mode. It is not used (AFAIK) in Library mode which uses the contents of the previews folders. It can be set to a minimum of 1GB or up to 200GB. With a fast processor, I don't see much advantage in having the image in the cache or not in the cache. With slow processors, there can be a time-saving in waiting for the rendered image to appear on-screen. When the cache is full, it deletes the oldest files to make space for the new. Unfortunately IMO you can't turn it off, so it is something else that has to run in the background.

Bob Frost

Please help me understand something.  Why is Lightroom using the ACR cache when it doesn't use ACR?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Guide ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

JimHess wrote:

It's the ACR cache, used by both LR and ACR. It holds partly-rendered versions of your images to save time in Develop mode. It is not used (AFAIK) in Library mode which uses the contents of the previews folders. It can be set to a minimum of 1GB or up to 200GB. With a fast processor, I don't see much advantage in having the image in the cache or not in the cache. With slow processors, there can be a time-saving in waiting for the rendered image to appear on-screen. When the cache is full, it deletes the oldest files to make space for the new. Unfortunately IMO you can't turn it off, so it is something else that has to run in the background.

Bob Frost

Please help me understand something.  Why is Lightroom using the ACR cache when it doesn't use ACR?

It does use ACR.  It just doesn't use the PS plugin version, it uses a version that's compiled into the LR code.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

But Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is the plug-in for Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.  If you don't have either of those programs, but do have Lightroom, you don't need ACR.  ACR is the designation for the plug-in, not for the technology that is part of Lightroom.  So that is why I ask, why does Lightroom use the ACR cache?

Additionally, I am still using Photoshop CS3 with Lightroom 3.0.  I'm not having a lot of the problems that some of you have been mentioning.  So if your theory is correct, how would Lightroom 3.0 use the cache for a completely out of date version of ACR?  Doesn't make sense to me.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Guide ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

JimHess wrote:

But Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is the plug-in for Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.  If you don't have either of those programs, but do have Lightroom, you don't need ACR.  ACR is the designation for the plug-in, not for the technology that is part of Lightroom.  So that is why I ask, why does Lightroom use the ACR cache?

Okay, LR uses the ACR *code*.  Whether that code is implemented in the form of a PS plugin or as a portion of Lightroom, it's still the same code, and it still uses the same cache.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

JimHess wrote:

But Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is the plug-in for Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.  If you don't have either of those programs, but do have Lightroom, you don't need ACR.  ACR is the designation for the plug-in, not for the technology that is part of Lightroom.  So that is why I ask, why does Lightroom use the ACR cache?

Additionally, I am still using Photoshop CS3 with Lightroom 3.0.  I'm not having a lot of the problems that some of you have been mentioning.  So if your theory is correct, how would Lightroom 3.0 use the cache for a completely out of date version of ACR?  Doesn't make sense to me.

While ACR is the plug-in used by PS ... it is also the engine that drives the Develop Module in LR ... it's the same code presented in a different UI.

The ACR cache, like any cache ... is nothing more than a repository for data that an application may be called upon frequently to render/display. Just like the cache for your web browser maintains elements for recently visited sites so frequently visited sites will load faster when you navigate back to them during a session. The fact that LR uses a cache that is named "ACR" is inconsequential.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

bob frost wrote:

It can be set to a minimum of 1GB or up to 200GB. With a fast processor, I don't see much advantage in having the image in the cache or not in the cache. With slow processors, there can be a time-saving in waiting for the rendered image to appear on-screen. When the cache is full, it deletes the oldest files to make space for the new. Unfortunately IMO you can't turn it off, so it is something else that has to run in the background.

Just to keep the record straight: the cache is not something you'd want to turn off (or minimise) as using it it saves your memory (RAM) for other tasks in Develop. That's the advantage of having an image cached, and why Adobe recommend increasing its size.

Nor is processor speed a really significant factor, although hard disk access speed is, ie the bus route to the cache itself. Slow disk access = slow develop module rendering.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mikkasa wrote:

bob frost wrote:

It can be set to a minimum of 1GB or up to 200GB. With a fast processor, I don't see much advantage in having the image in the cache or not in the cache. With slow processors, there can be a time-saving in waiting for the rendered image to appear on-screen. When the cache is full, it deletes the oldest files to make space for the new. Unfortunately IMO you can't turn it off, so it is something else that has to run in the background.

Just to keep the record straight: the cache is not something you'd want to turn off (or minimise) as using it it saves your memory (RAM) for other tasks in Develop. That's the advantage of having an image cached, and why Adobe recommend increasing its size.

Nor is processor speed a really significant factor, although hard disk access speed is, ie the bus route to the cache itself. Slow disk access = slow develop module rendering.

In my experience it is not hard disk speed that is limiting rendering speed. On my system LR3 reads only with a total I/O rate of 10-20 MB/sec (even while reading several files at once). This is about 5-10 times slower than a standard internal hard disk can deliver. You could even use an external USB 2 hard disk without noticing the difference. And it is also not CPU  that is limiting on my system, because most cores are idle and even those few working are only half busy.

And I would love it if Lightroom would make use of more RAM (if available) for speeding things up. Other programs demonstrate the dramatic speed improvement of this approach.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have a question! I unsubscribe to email alerts on these forums but still get them. I know by now that LR3 is plagued with speed and performance issues and I am satisfied that;

A) I'm not the only one;

B) Adobe probably doesn't know how to fix the issue.

I don't need 20-25 emails a day of the same conversation. How can I unsubscribe??

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Your Stuff -> Profile -> Email Notifications


Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rob Cole: Thank you....did that last week.....they are still coming through.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Rob Cole: Thank you....did that last week.....they are still coming through.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 01, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

To stop the notifications,try:

Your Stuff / E-mail Notifications

Then place a check mark in the "Remove..." and apply. At least this is what I have just done and hoping that it will work.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jul 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FulvioE wrote:

Rob Cole:  Thank you....did that last week.....they are still coming through.

For each thread you've replied to or started there is an "Actions" block near the top right of the thread.  Also, at the top of the whole "Discussion" there is a similar "no email" option.  I think that is the one that turns it off globally.

Hope that helps.

Jay S.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

JayS In CT wrote:

FulvioE wrote:

Rob Cole:  Thank you....did that last week.....they are still coming through.

For each thread you've replied to or started there is an "Actions" block near the top right of the thread.  I don't know if there is a global "turn off" but if you no longer want to get "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow" notifications, you turn it off for that thread in particular.

Hope that helps.

Jay S.

Thank you JayS ... I hadn't even noticed that.  I thought it was a "general" preferences option and did not note it was a thread by thread issue.

I have deactivated it within the thread itself and will watch to see if it works.  Thanks for the help.

Cheers

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jul 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

FulvioE wrote:

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

JayS In CT wrote:

FulvioE wrote:

Rob Cole:  Thank you....did that last week.....they are still coming through.

For each thread you've replied to or started there is an "Actions" block near the top right of the thread.  I don't know if there is a global "turn off" but if you no longer want to get "Why is Lightroom 3 so slow" notifications, you turn it off for that thread in particular.

Hope that helps.

Jay S.

Thank you JayS ... I hadn't even noticed that.  I thought it was a "general" preferences option and did not note it was a thread by thread issue.

I have deactivated it within the thread itself and will watch to see if it works.  Thanks for the help.

Cheers

You're welcome.

Jay S.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Jul 02, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have tried every cancellation option I can find, and the e-mail replies just keep on coming.  The only reason I'm answering this thread is because I have already done so.  Best solution, just don't get involved!  This is ridiculous.  I hadn't opened my e-mail at home for a couple of days and had more than 100 replies that I had to get rid of.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jul 04, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

OK, unsubscribing from this thread is possible - but using Lr3 on a 4-core

6GB Vista64 machine is not.

Is there a way to get reembursed after buying this crap? Working with the

catalog and develop is rather OK, but now I tried to screen 200+ NEFs from

the card and after a couple of images it becomes painfully slow, stalling

the whole system and changing to next image takes 30" - some mentioned that

copying the card to hard-drive and importing from disk works for them, but I

am sorrry: This is another step to the workflow I am not willing to make.

Why the heck this gerbil of code needs 4+GB while not consuming any CPU is

beyond me - perhaps they "tested" their caching/multithreading with 10

files?

In my first post to this thread I mentioned that Adobe will need some effort

to buy another product from them. I have to correct myself: I'll never buy

anything from Adobe anymore and as soon as I find an alternative to Acoread

(can of worms), I'll be happy to get rid of this bunch of geniuses.

I had been completely taken by the beta, but what is going on now is ...

Short tip: Adding more cache and threads can make sense, but usually there

is a limit from there the same strategy just creates liveness problems so

that throughput goes to 0. Luckily my income doesn't depend on Lr's

performance, but on my skills to solve caching/multithreading issues:-)

This product has such nice features and delivers outstanding IQ and is

entirely compromised by 2nd level shortcomes. I don't believe Adobe will be

able to make a living from PDF alone

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jul 04, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

csaager,

I don't blame you for being frustrated with Lightroom3 and even angry at or disgusted with Adobe - you're obviously one of the less-lucky Lr3 experiencers. And, I'm not an Adobe apologist or fan-boy or defender... but, I would like to encourage you to hang in there for a little while - Lr3.1 may very well fix most of the critical issues for you - it should be out fairly soon (based on comment by Julie Kmoch and other gossip). Then, if 3.1 isn't at least better in the most important ways, scrap it...

Obviously, if you've had enough, then you've had enough - just thought I'd try and encourage a bit...

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advisor ,
Jul 04, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Obviously, not everyone is having the exact same problem as you, and to this extreme.

Have you contacted Adobe Support? If you need to return the product, you can do it there.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jul 04, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Still not entirely sure what is going on. All hell certainly broke loose at the time I am upgraded Lightroom, when I was not having any problems before. However, updating from Leopard to Snow Leopard seemed to change the situation later on (when LR3 seemed to become responsive but a lot of program freezes started to occur) and I am not sure what else I may have updated around the same time as LR3. Also, I have been having a bit of a problem for a while with an external HD, which would not power down when the computer was shut down or it was ejected (but would if the computer went to sleep); however, this was not a drive that I used regularly, although it was regularly connected and daisy chained with a drive that contained some of my LR library. After thinking the problems might have gone away, I recently had the Finder freeze on me again a couple of times. I have now taken the possibly suspect drive out of the equation and have my LR library and its backup on two new external drives (partly because I needed more capacity and partly to change hardware to see if that effects anything). The Wacom driver is not on my system. And I have done an erase and install of the new OS. So, barring some bad luck with the new external drives, if problems continue to arise, I would have to conclude that the problem really is either LR3 or my computer's hardware. But, I repeat, I was not having any hardware problems with my computer itself before the installation of LR3. Could that little problem with the one external drive have caused problems? Other than the power issue, I had no problems using that drive.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

speed test:

winxp 3,25gb    L2.7  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =time 5,30 min

win7 x64 8gb    L3.0  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =       6,16 min

hardware is the same phenom x4 9750 (100 the same photos)


why slower... !!??

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

kobajaszi777 wrote:

speed test:

winxp 3,25gb    L2.7  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =time 5,30 min

win7 x64 8gb    L3.0  raw --> jpg 85%   100 photos =       6,16 min

hardware is the same phenom x4 9750 (100 the same photos)


why slower... !!??

That's rendering.  Completely separate issue.  The new, improved rendering algorithms also require more processing cycles to complete.  It's the price you pay for improved image quality.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Wow....my RAM useage has gone through the roof w/ LR3. I

just checked my CPU meter and I was at 79% constant RAM use, with

peaks in the mid 80s. Never saw that number over 40%

before. I have 8gb now, looks like it is time for more!

I exited LR3 and then reopened and the RAM use is down at 37%. It will be interesting to see how and when it starts peaking.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes, it's very RAM hungry by design. I thought PShop was a memory hog, but if you check the min specs on the Adobe site, PS5 requires 1GB minimum; LR3 wants 4Gb... if you're packing more than 4, my guess is LR will hog as much as it can without degrading your system performance.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mikkasa wrote:

LR3 wants 4Gb... if you're packing more than 4, my guess is LR will hog as much as it can without degrading your system performance.

4GB minimum? I have 4GB on my system and Lr3 averages about 1G +/- a few hundred K.

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 09, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ok, so I exaggerate a little. it's actually 2Gb. nothing wrong with a little dramatic license...

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/systemreqs/

But still twice the PS5 requirements. That makes it a proper gas guzzler in my book.

OTOH, wassa point of having 8gigs if you never use it?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You can't get away with squat on this forum - gotta check your exagerrations before hittin' the "Submit" button .

I would guess Lightroom would "never" use more than about 1.5GB of RAM, when its functioning correctly, and if it ever tops 2GB - you got a leak... Somebody correct me if I'm full of hooey...

The other Gigs are for keeping another dozen programs open... Not too many programs even know how take advantage of massive quantities of ram when they're available - or at least that's been my experience so far.

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You're probably right. Still, if you're running a 40k+ image library and are possessed with the need to simultaneously run two multi-tabbed browsers (who, me?) you'll quickly run into problems.

I've noticed this over the course of three versions of LR and two new computers: the best upgrade you can hope for is a memory upgrade.

Seriously, I traded up my hardware in anticipation of LR3's reported performance hikes.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I would think if any of the programs your'e running are ram starved, then more ram helps, but if all of your programs have as much as they can possibly use, then more ram would not help.

But yeah, programs are getting hungrier and hungrier (couldn't find a "hungry" emoticon).

PS - Sometimes people mistake memory leakage for memory hunger.

Enjoy Lightroom,

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I've seen LR use over 5GB of my 12GB of ram, but I'd like to see it use more.

bob F.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advisor ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It probably depends on your platform. If a single app asks for 8Gb of memory on my Mac, it will get it, either as real or virtual memory.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

bob frost wrote:

I've seen LR use over 5GB of my 12GB of ram, but I'd like to see it use more.

Be careful what you wish for (consider you may have a memory leak).

Mac or Win?

PS - I'm pretty sure on Win7/64 if I added more memory Lightroom wouldn't use a bit of it - there's free memory right now that it doesn't use. I mean it "used" it when I had a memory leak, but ever since I optimized my catalog it doesn't use it. Well, occasionally it "uses" it, but its generally a precursor to a slow down followed by a crash...

Rob

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

clvrmnky wrote:

It probably depends on your platform. If a single app asks for 8Gb of memory on my Mac, it will get it, either as real or virtual memory.

Yeah, I was going to post sthg like that but didn't want to sound like a mac fanboy

however..

..a lot of these slow performance reports seem to originate from win7 x64 users, very well-specced systems at that. I'm tempted to point a shaky finger at things like openGL optimisation / hardware integration, rather than outright RAM & processor muscle, as the source of the difference, and GPU rather than CPU performance in general. Mel's post above is the sort of thing I'm on about.

Any thoughts? Have macs still got the edge for graphics/rendering work or not?

For mac users, it's maybe of interest to note the next mac OS release will address 3rd party app openGL issues as a priority item: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/05/06/mac_os_x_10_6_4_to_tackle_issues_with_opengl_iphoto_dv...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Explorer ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

All I can say is.. I am not having any issues at all with the new release. I am using WIN7 64 and I can use iTunes, DxO AND Lightroom3 all at the same time without any problems. All the features work as advertised and I am one happy Windows7 camper.

Has anyone considered that an AntiVirus program might be the cause? I use Microsoft Security Essentials.

... my two cents, thanks.

EDIT: I don't know why my system doesn't show up on my posts, but here it is:

Win7 64-bit; HP Pavilion Elite Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, 8gig RAM, Radeon HD4350; Lightroom 3; EOS 7D

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have 3G and it does say it needs 1G min.

I have found that LR3 crashes when running in 64bit (as does LR2 which I didn't realise I was running in 32bit)

I now have put LR3 back to 32 bit and it seems to work (it loads ok anyway- and I can develop etc)- not sure how I can get over this problem

I have an imac and my max ram I can have is 4.

Loepard 10.5.8

2.4 GHz

3G ram

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It won't harm performance running LR in 32bit as opposed to 64bit if you have less than 4Gb RAM. No idea if (or why) 64bit mode might provoke a crash, but it's almost certainly not going to do you any favours.

I came across a bookmarked blog post (by our very own Ms Bampton) that really helped when I was tweaking LR2: required reading for anyone troubleshooting LR speed issues... http://www.lightroomqueen.com/blog/2009/05/02/hurry-up-lightroom-the-best-speed-tips/

Maybe not common knowledge that you can now allocate as much as 200Gb to the ACR cache. Not sure what the default is; I have mine set at 50Gb, which seems to be plenty. As this is the main 'fuel tank' feeding the Develop module, it's worth a look (Preferences > FIle Handling) to see what yours is set to. Bear in mind you can elect an external drive if internal disk space is an issue.

Hope something there is of some help to someone...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It seems the reason is memory leak in 64bit version. I've installed 32bit and it works just fine.

The issue was dramatic performance loss while browsing raws in library mode. Free memory ceased to zero after 200 pictures viewed and lightroom slows very much. Reopening helps, but it;s better to use 32 bit version until 64bit version is fixed.

Lightroom version: 3.0 [677000]
Operating system: Windows 7 Ultimate Edition
Version: 6.1 [7600]
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Physical processor count: 8
Processor speed: 2.6 GHz
Built-in memory: 6142.4 MB

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Beginner ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

After a quick test, that seems to fix all my problems. I will delve deeper into it later when I get back to editing but the default cache was actually 4GB. I set it to 50GB and the program took off.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ok. Totally silly question. Where do I find the 32 bit version? I log in to my adobe account and it won't allow me to download another version. It won't allow me dowloand ANY version for that matter. It says Not applicable in the download cloumn. Wonderful. Is there some other way to get the 32 bit version? What am I missing?

When I attempt to download it, it must be auto sensing my PC setup as it downloads the 64 bit version automatically. Hmmm. Any hints?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Adobe Community Professional ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It's in the same install package, but when you go to install it, check the 'show the files' checkbox (or whatever it says!!) in that installation dialog and find the setup32.exe file and double click that.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 14, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks Victoria!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Aug 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Anti virus?

That sounds an interesting line of thought. My problem is that Beta 2 was VERY fast compared to LR 3 release. I wish Adobe would shed some light on what they fixed in LR 3 that was not broken in the Beta.

In many ways, CS5/ACR is much faster that LR... makes no sense to me...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Keep in mind that if you're using a 32-bit Windows OS including Windows 7, the OS can only use about 3 GB or maybe 3.5 GB of RAM, no matter how much you load onto the PC.  So if LR3 is slow on your system with 2 GB of RAM,and that wouldn't be a huge surprise especially if you have a large catalog and a 2+ year old PC, it may not be much better even if you upgrade your RAM to 8 GB, unless you also do a reformat and reinstall to a 64-bit Windows OS.  Doing that may cause other issues with other software.  For example, I also use Adobe Audition, and comments on the Adobe support forum for those who have tried Audition with 64-bit Win7 seem divided between those who run it fine and those who can't run it well at all. Your hardware drivers also may or may not support 64-bit Windows.A 64-bit OS is great with hardware and software that can run it, likely including LR3 and PS CS5, but YMMV with your other apps and your gear.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi!

My images are taking 10 seconds to load going from one image to the next  in Develop mode. I'm using LR3 with the existing reviews from Beta2,  which was much faster. Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz 2GB 667MHz, running OSX 5.8.

Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

Cheers!

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I haven't loaded LR3 onto my macbook (same spec as yours) yet but if LR2 was anything to go by, and you're talking about 1:1 rendering in Develop, 10 seconds probably is a bit slow but not horrendously so.

I'm still not sure what aspect of the i5 iMac makes it so much quicker (quad-core/4Gb notwithstanding) but it is... consensus here seems to be that more RAM helps, but it's not the end of the story. Are you running it in 64-bit mode? I believe RAM needs to be a little beefier than 2gigs to make the most of 64bit, but it might help.

I do remember getting better macbook performance with LR on its own, ie quitting other stuff (esp browsers) that can be RAM-hungry.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Aug 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x. That said, I am using OS X 10.6.4 on a three year old 3GHz quad core Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. And, despite plenty of RAM and 64 bit operation, Lightroom 3 renders images and just generally runs more slowly than Lightroom 2. I guess I'll have to live with it, though, unless Adobe can find a way to optimize performance somehow, because the new Mac Pros are way out of my league price-wise.

On another note, at the risk of being labelled a Mac fanboy, one of the advantages of Snow Leopard (on a late model Intel Mac, of course) is that even when the OS is running in 32 bit mode (the default, because most apps are not yet 64 bit capable), you can run applications in 64 bit. I guess I'll have to try running 10.6 in 64 bit mode to see if that gives Lightroom a boost. And you don't have to buy a separate version of OS X to get the 64 version. It's something you can turn on and off at will - with a restart, of course.

At any rate, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one experiencing Lightroom 3 slowdowns, and that the problem does not appear to be platform specific.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Aug 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

thewhitedog wrote:

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x. That said, I am using OS X 10.6.4 on a three year old 3GHz quad core Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. And, despite plenty of RAM and 64 bit operation, Lightroom 3 renders images and just generally runs more slowly than Lightroom 2. I guess I'll have to live with it, though, unless Adobe can find a way to optimize performance somehow, because the new Mac Pros are way out of my league price-wise.

On another note, at the risk of being labelled a Mac fanboy, one of the advantages of Snow Leopard (on a late model Intel Mac, of course) is that even when the OS is running in 32 bit mode (the default, because most apps are not yet 64 bit capable), you can run applications in 64 bit. I guess I'll have to try running 10.6 in 64 bit mode to see if that gives Lightroom a boost. And you don't have to buy a separate version of OS X to get the 64 version. It's something you can turn on and off at will - with a restart, of course.

At any rate, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one experiencing Lightroom 3 slowdowns, and that the problem does not appear to be platform specific.


Just to point out, the upgrade and retail versions of Windows 7 come with both 32 and 64 bit install discs. But the rest of what you said seems accurate enough.

You might also want to try to upgrade your video drivers, make sure to have time machine running before you try just in case something goes wrong.

For nVidia: http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce-macosx-19.5.8f03-driver.html (made for Mac Pro's and the GTX 285, but should work on any nVidia card according to reports)

For ATI/nVidia: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1065 (made for the new iMacs, find more info in this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=985610)

I am not sure which driver is faster, but you can try for yourself if you like.

Also, leaving the history pane open in develop seems to affect the speed on my friends Macbook Pro as well.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Aug 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

thewhitedog wrote:

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x.

Err.. .uh.. What?  Why do you say that? According to everything I've read on the Adobe site, 10.5 is supported for 64 bit...  And I was running 2.7 as 64 bit as well.  :}

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Advocate ,
Aug 11, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Jasonized wrote:

thewhitedog wrote:

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x.

Err.. .uh.. What?  Why do you say that? According to everything I've read on the Adobe site, 10.5 is supported for 64 bit...  And I was running 2.7 as 64 bit as well.  :}

yep ... 10.5 runs LR in 64 bit mode just fine .....

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Aug 11, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Engaged ,
Aug 11, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

IME delete the preview cache and it will take a looong time to rebuild a decent sized catalog for no discernible improvement.

You could try optimising the catalog (in the file menu) - takes less time, no harm in trying.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Mikkasa,

Thanks, I did optimise with no change.



Merci!

Brian

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Brian Noppe wrote:

Hi!

My images are taking 10 seconds to load going from one image to the next  in Develop mode. I'm using LR3 with the existing reviews from Beta2,  which was much faster. Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz 2GB 667MHz, running OSX 5.8.

Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

Cheers!

Switching from one (non-cached) Nikon D700 NEF image to another takes about 3 seconds on my MacPro:

  Model Identifier: MacPro1,1

  Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon

  Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz

  Number Of Processors: 2

  Total Number Of Cores: 4

  L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB

  Memory: 5 GB

  Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz

Switching from one (non-cached) Nikon D300 NEF (same size images as the D700) image to another takes about 5 seconds on my MacBook Pro:

Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 3 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
New Here ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks, Bob, for the benchmark.

Doesn't that seem slow to you? i.e. a folder of 1500 images would take 2 hours of rendering time alone at 5 seconds per image.

Cheers!

Brian

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Enthusiast ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

D70 NEF files render in about 1/2 the time as the D700.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
LEGEND ,
Jun 10, 2010

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It takes my win7/64 box (modest build) about 5-10 seconds to render a virgin (14-bit D300) image, probably more like 15 seconds on the average - depending mostly on how much I've been brushing on it. Could be up to a half minute if I've gone crazy with the locals...

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report