Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

Aug 6, 2012 4:02 PM

  Latest reply: thewhitedog, Dec 3, 2010 4:44 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 ... 30 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 4:07 AM   in reply to jonathan7007

    Hi Jonathon,

     

    Ya know, RAM is one of those VooDoo subjects that separates people into two camps:

     

    1. Those who strongly believe you can never have too much.

    2. Those who believe enough is enough.

     

    I fall in the second camp.

     

    The good news is: your ram meter will tell you if you need more. If you're not using all you've got then you don't need more (and when I say you don't need it, I really mean that it wouldn't  do you a bit of good if you had it). If you've max'd out your ram consumption and your machine starts to chug then you do need more.

     

    Obviously you will make up your own mind, but just watching the ram meter and when it starts maxing out, then buy more ram - has always worked for me.

     

    PS - There is one caveat: It is true that if your software has memory leaks (and a lot of software does) the more ram you have the longer you can run before your machine slows down or crashes - this is one reason some people think more is better. Closing and re-opening the guilty apps fixes that problem.

     

    Summary: If I were you, I'd just try it and see - trust your meter - buy more if the meter-boss says to...

     

    And, I really think 6GB will be plenty even for that whopping full frame - but I could be wrong: I'm sure if you created enough layers in Photoshop you could max it out.

     

    Hope you are lucky with the trial,

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 3:46 AM   in reply to laurencec

    I don't understand why everyone is complaining about speed.

     

    If you have X thousand images, all 10+ megapixels, all with their own set of adjustments (a million sliders, local adjustments, camera profiles, lens profiles, etc). Its gonna take a few seconds to 1) render them 2) load the rendered image (due to sheer size). That is sort of the price you have to pay for non-destructive raw image processing. Lightroom is still making you very much more efficient than you would be without it. And you're getting superior image quality.

     

    That said, I wish Lightroom were even better at caching the thumbnail previews. If you scroll too fast in Library, you're still going to see the thumbnails all fuzzy before they become sharp. Perhaps that is the price you pay for having the very flexible thumbnail handling. But I'd almost prefer it if I had less flexibility and faster loading thumbnails.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 3:59 AM   in reply to davidnaylor83

    davidnaylor83 wrote:

     

    I don't understand why everyone is complaining about speed.

     

    There are a multitude of issues:

     

    1. Some people expected it to be faster than Lr2, but its not, or at least not much, or at least not accross the board... (because the marketing people have over-stated performance improvements).

    2. Some people are having problems that it runs waaaaaaaaaay slower than it would if it were running properly - like orders of magnitude in some cases.

    3. There are also a multitude of bugs that are affecting performance in a variety of ways.

     

    If its as fast as Lr2 for the most part, for you, then consider yourself lucky.

     

    PS - I'm sure there are some people who don't understand that processing big RAWs just takes a good while, but I think they are in the minority.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 9:25 AM   in reply to laurencec

    My catalog is 190,00 images and navigating among folders and searching the catalog is much, much faster than it was with any previous version of LR.

     

    However, my LR3 gets sluggish after multiple brush strokes on consecutive images that I have been exporting to CS5 and reimporting post tweak. The first sign is a sluggish mouse wheel that makes changing brush sizes a real adventure. When I check my CPU meter, I see RAM utilization has gone through the roof and  the CPU is beginning to sweat. Closing and reopening LR3 temporarily solves this problem.

     

    My box is a dual monitor Dell workstation with dual quad core Xeons and 8gb of RAM running Win 7 x64.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 9:58 AM   in reply to Wanchese West

    Wanchese West wrote:

    I see RAM utilization has gone through the roof and  the CPU is beginning to sweat.

    Have you optimized your catalog since upgrading?  There have been reports of that solving similar problems.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 10:08 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Ha! Reminds me of the doctor who asked the patient

    complaining of shortness of breath..." Have you tried breathing?"

     

    I optimize and backup my catalog daily.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 10:11 AM   in reply to Wanchese West

    Oh well, it was worth a shot!  There are so many levels of experience here, you can't take anything for granted.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 10:16 AM   in reply to Wanchese West

    Did you mean 19,000 or 190,000?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 12:25 PM   in reply to davidnaylor83

    Picture 1.png

    With all due respect because there is Lr 2, an older version which processes at half the time and uses half of the ram and we actually have real work to do. I believe, most would agree that a new version must perform better.

     

    Picture 2.png

    I agree with you Photo_op8.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 1:07 PM   in reply to arnelg

    arnelg wrote:

     


    With all due respect because there is Lr 2, an older version which processes at half the time and uses half of the ram and we actually have real work to do. I believe, most would agree that a new version must perform better.

     


     

    Half the time: Really? But with LR3 you're getting twice the IQ!

     

    Half the ram? Stop looking at your RAM usage and just do your work. The Windows ram measurement is nowhere near reliable anyway, and doesn't show you the real usage.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 12:51 PM   in reply to arnelg

    +1 post (er, I meant +1 vote). - I agree - totally useless...

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 12:52 PM   in reply to laurencec

    Before committing to purchase the full version of Lightroom 3 I have tried the trial version. Currently I have a  dual core E6600 @ 2.4GHz and 4G Ram with Windows 7 32 bit.

     

    I have a Canon 5D2 DSLR and generally shoot raw files. I find that switching between images takes around 16-20 seconds with raw files and about 4 seconds with jpg files. General operation can best be describes as sluggish. I created  a new catalogue with only about 100 images in it. Memory usage only goes up from 1.2Gb to 1.6Gb when Lightroom is started so from what I can see memory is not an Issue. Both CPU cores on the other hand run flat out.

     

    Switching from the default 2010 process profile back to the old 2003 profile seems to make an enormous performance difference. Raw files seem to open about 4 times faster.

     

    I got so frustrated with the slow performance that  I have tried installing Windows7 64 bit onto a spare drive and only loaded Lightroom 3 - about as clean and uncluttered OS as possible. I was disappointed to see that there was no noticeable difference in performance.

     

    I also did a Windows performance bench mark on both OS's and was a bit surprised to see substantially lower processor and ram bench marks on the 64 bit version given the same hardware.

     

                           32 bit      64 bit
    Processor       5.8          4.4

    RAM               5.5          4.8

    Graphics         5.9          5.9

    Gaming           5.9          5.9

    Disk                5.9          5.9

     

    My son has a new(ish)  Mackbook Pro with 2.8GHz dual core processor.  We loaded the Mac version of Lightroom and the same images. The overall experience is much smoother with raw files  loading about twice as fast. Once rendered switching between images was almost instantaneous – a significant difference compared to the Windows version considering similar spec processors.

     

    I'm now starting to think that it may be the time to switch to a Mac. Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance. Does anyone have a real feel how much faster a new quad core 2.8Ghz i7 iMac compared to a dual core 2.8Ghz Mac Book Pro when using Lightroom 3?

     

    Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

     

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2010 2:30 PM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    ...and considering I am new to the forum, a good suggestion..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 12:51 AM   in reply to Martin Ingle

    Thanks for taking your time trying to isolate this slow-down - I too am disappointed.

     

    I know in the past the nVidia drivers required special settings for LR2...

     

    When's someone from Adobe going to respond to all of our posts, or does this require a phone-call to tech support?

     

    -David

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 1:25 AM   in reply to FeatherLightStudios

    Reading between the posts, tech support looks like a good option for mac users with directory or system issues, some (at least) of which appear to be fixable in the main.

     

    Looks like Windows users have a more hardware-related issue, in which case tech support will do you no good. Assuming, of course, you wouldn't feel better for verbally abusing a complete stranger over something completely beyond his control

     

    What you need in this case is a dot update that fixes some wintel hardware-addressing bug(s) and posting here is as good a place as any to shout for one.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 2:25 AM   in reply to Martin Ingle

    Martin Ingle wrote:

     

    Before committing to a hefty investment in hardware I want to be sure that it will have a significant effect on performance. Does anyone have a real feel how much faster a new quad core 2.8Ghz i7 iMac compared to a dual core 2.8Ghz Mac Book Pro when using Lightroom 3?

    Is it realistic, with today’s affordable technology, to expect 20 mega pixel +  raw file images to be rendered and displayed in Lightroom  with the  2010 process profile enabled in  1-2 seconds or do we just have to accept the penalty of slow speed for improved IQ?

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I don't have a MacBook as new as that, nor an iMac as highly specced, but I will say LR2 on my 2008 MBP was a nodding donkey compared to my shiny new i5 quad-core iMac. Huge improvement in performance.

     

    It's also worth stating for the record that LR3 is zippier than LR2 for me, in almost every respect, the more I use it. Makes sense, as lots of re-rendering and re-profiling is is chugging away – something to bear in mind in general: LR relies on a vast cache of meta-info to work swiftly and if you ain't already built that up, it might drag for a while at first.

     

    I'd stick my neck out and say you'd find the same thing with an i7 iMac (I've seen LR2 running a similar sized catalog on an i7 iMac and it was no faster.. he said with misty green eyes..) as long as you fresh install LR3 on a virgin OS 10.6. Let your previews render for as long as it takes and you should have no complaints. 1-2 seconds is what it takes mine to load a 12MP RAW file; a 75meg comp I just loaded up took around 15secs to deliver a 1:1 preview. Size is everything, of course... and the wait is directly proportional.

     

    Maybe it's worth hearing from people with either no problems or positive feedback here, along with system spec and history, so we can get a gauge on what's working, as well as what sucks

     

    Mine's a month-old 27" quad-core i5 iMac, 4Gb (standard) RAM, main catalog 40k images. Although I ran the second beta for 2 weeks, following advice gleaned here I ditched my LR3b2 cats and upgraded direct from LR2.7 to LR3. Sweet as a nut, touch wood...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 8:13 AM   in reply to laurencec

    I'd like to add my vote to the OP. LR3 is unbearably slow - and I am comparing to performance of LR 2.7.

     

    The thing that annoys me is slow response of the interface in Real Time mode - for example browsing through photos in Develop Module takes about 15 seconds. The pop-up "Loading" comes up, the circle on the left is spinning and I am left waiting. It goes away after 15 seconds. I could live  with longer response time of tasks that happen in the background - such as import/export or thumbnail building. But having to wait 15 seconds every time I move to a new image is really unacceptable, especially if the previous version worked fine.

     

    Such tasks as paintbrushing are also much slower than LR 2.7.

     

    RAM does not seem to be an issue - LR is taking 700Mb (combined physical and vm) and I have about 800mb of physical ram available.

     

    My system stats:

    Panasonic Toughbook W7

    Windows XP, SP3

    Intel Core Duo U7500 @ 1.06Ghz

    2 Gig ram

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 8:27 AM   in reply to laurencec

    This lightroom version is a strange beast.

     

    I've reported my problem here :

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659033?tstart=0

     

     

    In short ... most things work fast enough for me, some of them I feel faster, others maybe slightly slower. I'd say lightroom is now ... not faster, not slower, just differently balanced.

     

    Except the print module, that is noticeably slower when browsing SOME templates and applying them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 9:21 AM   in reply to bokeron2008

    Working with LR3.0 was slow, not working form me. Have been experimenting with it to speed it up. Loading sometimes "hangs" I noticed by accident that when I moved my cursor (wacom) down to the main screen with the windows taskbar (which I had on automatically hide) and went back up things seemed to speed up. I changed the taskbar behaviour from "automatically hide" to always on the foreground (I am using the classical windows theme) and that definitively speeded up things for me. Loading is still slow, but that might have to do with the older computer I am using, but slider response is definitively better!

     

    Give it a try!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 11:30 AM   in reply to laurencec

    Hi

     

    I did a quick test  now and if I change the Camera Calibration back to 2003 I got back almost the same response as with LR2.7 moving the exposure slider back and forth, that means it changes along with the slider. Setting it to 2010(current) I have to wait up to a second for each time I change it for the image to change.

     

    So at the moment I will set it back to 2003 and work with that and use 2010 only if I need it.

     

    - Terje

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 12:15 PM   in reply to teho59

    well... I think 2010 is the way to go for IQ!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 3:14 PM   in reply to camerahans

    I just upgraded to LR3 and decided to start a new catalog from scratch. After importing less than 1000 photos, the performance is almost unusable! I have rebooted, optimized the catalog, defragged the HDD, restarted LR3, rebooted, and checked all the settings suggested by others.

     

    In case anyone's wondering, my PC is a new Intel Core i7 running at 4 GHz, 12 GB DDR3 memory, RAID (Striped) HDD setup, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, and dual monitors (only using one for LR3). Nothing much else is running, and most apps are lightning fast (including Photoshop).

     

    LR3 stalls every time I go to one of the new folders that I imported pictures into, and when I try to import new photos, it takes quite some time. I can't believe it's anything but the program that is responsible for the sluggish (and that's being kind) performance. Here is a screen shot that I had plenty of time to take while the program is generating previews (there are about 200 images in this folder), so you can see I'm not kidding.

    LR3 Screen Capture.JPG

    Any ideas, folks?

     

    Thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 4:59 PM   in reply to Eric_G_7D

    I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but it might help out those having speed issues.

     

    Try checking your Catalog Settings and turn OFF the "Automatically write changes into XMP". I have turned if off since version Lr1, so I don't know what the default settings are.

     

    catalog settings.PNG

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 5:30 PM   in reply to laurencec

    There is a lot of arguing over samantics but the truth is LR 3 is wicked slow and has too many bugs for my tatse. Saying that you get better IQ doesn't make sense to me either. At what point is the IQ better? I found that after applying a preset or any adjustment for that matter the preview goes soft and it takes zooming in then out to get a crisp view again.

    I run relatively small catalogs too, I have one for each event so I'm usually under 2000 images per catalog.

    iMac 3.33ghz - 12GB RAM - snow leopard

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 5:49 PM   in reply to BSC_PHOTO

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    There is a lot of arguing over samantics but the truth is LR 3 is wicked slow and has too many bugs for my tatse.


    - Lightroom 3.0 has plenty of bugs to be sure. But a lot of the slowness is due to the bugs. When Lightroom 3 is working properly, and for some people it is, Lightroom 3 is, in general, a little peppier than Lightroom 2 was.

     

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    Saying that you get better IQ doesn't make sense to me either.

    - Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, and Aperture 3.

     

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    I found that after applying a preset or any adjustment for that matter the preview goes soft and it takes zooming in then out to get a crisp view again.

    - Thats a bug. Adjustments are quick for me on a modest win7/64 machine.

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 5:55 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    "- Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, and Aperture 3."

    Never used them. I thought "better IQ" meant better than LR2

     

    How do some of us have bugs and other don't? I never got that.

    I do find that images from my lower megapixel cameras render at normal speeds while my larger MP images used to render an "normal" speeds.

     

    It is just frustrating.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 6:19 PM   in reply to BSC_PHOTO

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    "- Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, and Aperture 3."

    Never used them. I thought "better IQ" meant better than LR2


    - I should have said "Compare to Bibble 5.1, DxO 6, CaptureOnePro5, NX2, Aperture 3, and Lightroom 2" .

     

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    How do some of us have bugs and other don't? I never got that.

    - If its any consolation - Adobe is struggling with the very same question.

     

     

    BSC_PHOTO wrote:

     

    It is just frustrating.

    - Indeed.

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2010 10:18 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Everyone - Wonder if it has something to do with NVIDIA driver configuration - For what it's worth - Here's my configuration -

     

    Dell XPS 630 Quad Core Q9550, Windows 7, 64-bit Home Premium, two NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT cards running in SLI configuration. Running latest drivers from NVIDIA website.  8GB RAM  5.9 User experience.  Two 500GB 7200 RPM drives in RAID 0 configuration.

     

    Also confirmed disk has 0 fragmentation, running Kaspersky 2010 Internet sercurity (LR3 runs just as slow with this disabled)

     

    I'll give Adobe a call tomorrow and see if talking to someone on the phone generates an answer - If they figure it out, I'll post here!

     

    -David

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 3:31 AM   in reply to Mikkasa

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 4:41 AM   in reply to awimaging

    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-b est-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...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 5:16 AM   in reply to Mikkasa

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 5:27 AM   in reply to laurencec

    I agree with the 64 bit memory leak theory. I posted about this yesterday. See here. I have 8 gb of RAM and it ate 6.78gb while importing 264 raw files! Are you kidding me? Something is definitely wrong.

     

    I'm gonna try loading the 32 bit version on my 64 bit PC, and see if that helps.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 7:32 AM   in reply to Mikkasa

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 7:59 AM   in reply to laurencec

    Quick Note:

    Although increasing the ACR cache has sped LR up to lightning fast speeds it has not changed the issue where an adjusted image goes jagged until you zoom in and out. This is a huge bug for me as I will delete most even slightly soft images. I will say that the process of zooming in and out as well as making the adjustments has sped up so much that it is almost tollerable that I have to do that to check my images

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 8:20 AM   in reply to shirkov

    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?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 8:24 AM   in reply to Lou Gonza

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 8:27 AM   in reply to Victoria Bampton

    Thanks Victoria!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 8:39 AM   in reply to BSC_PHOTO

    Hi, Sean McCormack in another thread offered a solution, which in summary is increasing the purging the cache and increasing ACR cache. I tried it and LR3 worked really fast, both zooming in and out and exporting. So, I continued working, processing a folder of senior portraits.  Then after some exports, it slowed down. I went thru the process again, same experience, fast at first then slowed down after an export of less than 40 files. I believe Sean solution is very good but there seems to be another thing that is affecting LR 3's responsiveness.

     

    Apparently  this concern of LR 3 is true with many users, across both Windows and Mac.

     

    There are now more than 2800 views on this thread and more than 76 replies, but it seems that there is no  reply yet from an Adobe engineer. Or is there?

     

    Here is the link to a similar thread:

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/655828?tstart=30

     

    And the link to Sean post about increasing cache of ACR

    http://lightroom-blog.com/2010/04/camera-raw-cache.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 8:55 AM   in reply to arnelg

    Yes I saw his post too and increased my cache size. It was set to 1 gb. I now have it set to 100gb but I still don't see a performance improvement.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2010 9:24 AM   in reply to BSC_PHOTO

    Hi, BSC_PHOTO.

     

    Is this the same bug you've wrote about :

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/2894587

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 4 ... 30 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points