Skip navigation

Found a significant LR4 speedup - regenerate ACR cache

Mar 21, 2012 7:40 PM

Tags: #performance #lr4
  Latest reply: ashleykaryl, Mar 31, 2012 1:24 AM
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 6:09 PM   in reply to clvrmnky

    Sounds like there has been some significant new handling of ACR cache. It used to only be used in develop module (or exports) - big entries written (or read) when switching to develop view, or creating 1:1 previews using Library menu, but otherwise never created in Lib module.

     

    Now it's creating much smaller files, when browsing in Lib module too...

     

    How about one of you go-getters mastermind, benchmark, and report, eh?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 7:03 PM   in reply to clvrmnky

    Hey all....thanks for the responses.

     

    First, I knew nothing about "fast load data" for DNG files. I looked in my LR4 Prefs and found that I do have fast load data checked for DNG files, but I am not sure when that happened. I assume it is checked by default when you install LR4. However, most of my DNG files were created when importing raw files using LR2 and LR3. I typically import all my images into my "5D Images" folder for initial review, and after playing with these images for a few days or weeks, I move them to other folders for final storage and organization. 

     

    I can click view any image in my 5D Images folder, in either the Library or Develop module, and no entries are written to my cache file—not a single one.

     

    Next, I went to Library mode and navigated to different folder, then clicked through some images, and every DNG file I clicked on did then write to the cache file. I'm not sure why that doesn't happen in my 5D Import folder—maybe because the images are more current, have had previews recently created, etc? Beats me. Anyway, the average size of the cache entries seems to be about 400kb in size, plus or minus about 50kb.

     

    If I set my magnification level to 100% view (1:1) and move from one DNG image to another, it seems to take 2-3 seconds for a sharp final image to appear. I'm using a 240 GB SSD drive for programs, OS, LR catalog & previews and my cache at the moment. All my 40,000 images are on a different 7200 RPM, 1TB HDD. I'm running OSX 10.6.8, 16 GB RAM, (two) 2.26 4-core GHz processor (total of 8 cores). Sometimes when I navigate back to a previously cached image and click on it again, it comes up sharp instantaneously, but sometimes it takes another 2-3 seconds to display sharp (all this is at 1:1 preview).

     

    In the Develop module, a previously cached image (or one where I created 1:1 preview manually) will immediately come up sharp at 1:1 magnification, but then it gets fuzzy  for 2-3 seconds while the little hour glass spins, and returns to being sharp again. That's crazy. I am not sure what is going on, but wanted to report back on what I am finding.

     

    Lou

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 7:15 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Thanks for the update Lou.

     

    How long does it take to get a finished develop view with fast-load data disabled?

     

     

    Lou Dina wrote:

     

    1: Sometimes when I navigate back to a previously cached image and click on it again, it comes up sharp instantaneously...

     

    2: In the Develop module, a previously cached image (or one where I created 1:1 preview manually) will immediately come up sharp at 1:1 magnification, but then it gets fuzzy  for 2-3 seconds while the little hour glass spins, and returns to being sharp again. That's crazy. I am not sure what is going on, but wanted to report back on what I am finding.

     

    See 8 posts up for the answer to these questions (1: its cached in ram, 2: lib preview - crude dev rendering - final dev rendering).

     

     

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 7:23 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Thanks, Rob.

     

    Is there any way to keep it cached in RAM so it is faster and skips that slow, fuzzy 2nd stage? I have 16 GB RAM, 35 GB dedicated to ACR Cache (most of which is empty since I recently purged the cache) and a 240 GB SSD drive that has about 130 GB free.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 7:57 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Hi Lou - no way to speed it up that I know of, and thus I complain too...

     

    How much of a speed-up are you getting from the fast-load data? Anybody else noted a difference with/without fast-load data?

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 28, 2012 8:16 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Thanks, Rob. I was afraid that would be your answer.

     

    "How much of a speed-up are you getting from the fast-load data? Anybody else noted a difference with/without fast-load data?"

     

    I'm not sure how to answer your question. I am assuming, (perhaps incorrectly), that only the DNG images I have imported since the fast load data checkbox was checked use the fast load data and have the slightly larger file size. I am guessing that all my previously imported/converted CR2 > DNG files are slightly smaller size and do not have the fast load data built into them. How can one tell?

     

    At any rate, I just imported three raw images from my 5Dmk2, and told LR4 to convert to DNG and create 1:1 previews upon import. (The import was pretty slow too). When moving between images displayed at 1:1 maginification in the Develop module, the new files (imported with fast load data and 1:1 previews) take about 1-1/2 to 2 seconds to show up sharply. Some older DNG images imported with LR3 take 3-4 seconds to show up sharply. Not very scientific. All these DNG files have a file size in the 20-25 MB range.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 1:57 AM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Hi All,

     

    I have exactly the same problem that Lou had . NO writes to the cache at all. I've purged the cache, set it to 50Gb, chosen a location on a different local drive to the catalog and images, made changes to 150 DNGs with fast load data, re-written 1:1 previews for those 150 files and still no writes to the cache.

     

    This has only been happening since I installed the trial, prior to that, with the same set-up, I had LR4beta installed and it was writing to the cache as it always had done with 1,2 and 3! I didn't uninstall the beta before installing the trial.

     

    Nex step going to try to re-install and see what happens!

     

    Intel dual processor 3GHz, 8Gb RAM (max available on this motherboard) + 16Gb readyboost RAM, Win7 64bit, OS,LR and catalog on 7200rpm hdd with 30% space, cache on separate 320Gb drive 7200 rpm, DNGs on 640Gb 7200rpm hdd.

     

    Message was edited by: paul-w - added extra info

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:52 AM   in reply to paul-w

    Instead of re-installing I dismounted the ReadyBoost RAM and again purged the cache, made a change to about 150 7.5Mb DNGs and again created 1:1 previews. Let that process finish and then checked the cache. Still no writes.

     

    Next stop re-install and see what happens

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 4:57 AM   in reply to paul-w

    I apologize in advance if this has already been answered, but has anybody confirmed that the cache is still supposed to be used for DNGs when fast-load data is enabled?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 5:07 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    In post 37 above Hal said he didn't think that the cache would be used with DNGs and Fast Load Data. But nobody has confirmed this.

     

    Still reinstalling and generating 1:1s of 200+ files. Will get back as soon as I can.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 5:11 AM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lou Dina wrote:

     

    Thanks, Rob. I was afraid that would be your answer.

     

    "How much of a speed-up are you getting from the fast-load data? Anybody else noted a difference with/without fast-load data?"

     

    I'm not sure how to answer your question. I am assuming, (perhaps incorrectly), that only the DNG images I have imported since the fast load data checkbox was checked use the fast load data and have the slightly larger file size. I am guessing that all my previously imported/converted CR2 > DNG files are slightly smaller size and do not have the fast load data built into them. How can one tell?

     

    At any rate, I just imported three raw images from my 5Dmk2, and told LR4 to convert to DNG and create 1:1 previews upon import. (The import was pretty slow too). When moving between images displayed at 1:1 maginification in the Develop module, the new files (imported with fast load data and 1:1 previews) take about 1-1/2 to 2 seconds to show up sharply. Some older DNG images imported with LR3 take 3-4 seconds to show up sharply. Not very scientific. All these DNG files have a file size in the 20-25 MB range.

     

    Hi Lou,

     

    Since I don't use DNG, I haven't done my homework, but one way to check:

     

    1. Enable fast-load data.

    2. Make a copy of a virginal photo file (outside of Lightroom).

    2. Import as new photo.

    3. Check time to switch to photo after it's already been selected once in develop view, and therefore the fast-load data has been written, but select a half dozen other photos first, to assure develop module is not fetching develop view from ram.

    4. check file size.

     

    5. Disable fast-load data.

    6. Re-import virginal copy of same photo again, but with different filename.

    7. Check time to switch to photo after it's already been selected once in develop view, but select a half dozen other photos first...

    8. check file size - it should be considerably smaller than in the previous test, since it definitely won't have the fast-load data.

     

    The difference between times is the performance advantage of using fast-load data.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 5:33 AM   in reply to paul-w

    Paul-w....

     

    Whenever I display ANY DNG image in my main import folder (this is the folder into which I always import my images for temporary evaluation), I do NOT get any writes to cache. Some of these images were imported after LR4 was installed with fast load data enabled. Some of these images were imported months ago using LR3, so fast load data was not enabled. All are DNG files (no proprietary raw files....ie, CR2). There are some PSD, TIf and JPG files, but they do not trigger a write to cache. Even the DNG files do not trigger a write to cache.

     

    Since LR4 was performing so sluggishly, I did at one time create 1:1 previews for my entire import folder. Perhaps this is the reason nothing is written to cache? I'm not sure. Like I said, some were imported and converted to DNG by LR4 with fast load enabled, and some were imported and converted to DNG by LR3. But no files in this folder trigger a write to cache, not even DNG files.

     

    If I switch to another folder, clicking on a DNG file DOES trigger a write to cache. In these other folders did not manually create 1:1 previews. I am guessing, perhaps mistakenly, that manually creating 1:1 previews writes this data to the LR image preview file and perhaps eliminates the need to use cache. PSD, TIF, JPG and other formats don't seem to trigger a write to cache no matter where they are located. I don't have any native CR2 files on my machine, so cannot comment on them.

     

    Just wanted to be clear what my situation is, since it may be different from yours. Even with 1:1 previews manually generated and previously cached images, I still find the display at 100% magnification to be fairly slow. If an image was just viewed (within the last half dozen images), it pops up fast and in focus. But, even if I created 1:1 previews and it was cached, it comes up in 2-4 seconds if viewed awhile back.

     

    Lou

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 2:11 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    I think I've been seeing the same sort of problem as Lou for a considerable time. In fact it was slow with LR3 as well and never gave the impression that data was being saved to the cache, even though the designated folder was full of files. Curiously if I try to view the same images large inside Bridge they pop into sharp focus at large size in a fraction of a second but in Lightroom (now version 4) it takes 2-3 seconds. I'm on a new 8 Core Mac Pro with 32 Gigs of Ram and it's not really any better than on my 5 year old iMac.

     

    I've just tried purging the cache, which I've never tried before and I've allowed up to 200 gigs of space but the drive itself has over 600 gigs of space left and the cache was only 8 gigs.

     

    All files from my 1DsII are converted to DNG with 1:1 previews created at time of import but it just doesn't feel like that data is being properly saved. This is a catlogue that was upgraded from LR3 and I just selected all the images with the idea of rendering 1:1 previews again. For some reason it picked out 639 images from over 11,000 that needed rendering. Once that's finsihed I'll try to update DNG Previews & Metadata. I'm clutching straws here because I just don't know why it's like this.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 2:28 PM   in reply to ashleykaryl

    It's really strange but after clearing the cache most images are popping into sharp focus quickly now but some still take a few seconds. Do I try re-rending previews for the whole lot?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:26 PM   in reply to ashleykaryl

    Ashley,

     

    I'm not finding much improvement no matter what I do. The best improvement I got was creating a new catalog from my files. Rendering new previews, clearing cache, etc, sometimes helps and sometimes it doesn't. I think most of the problem is poor coding, poor caching, poor usage of computer power and cores, probably some inefficient algorithms, etc. Why it takes 3-5 seconds for sharpening to show up when toggling the sharpening on and off is a mystery to me. I'm sure some tweaking will improve performance somewhat, but Adobe needs to address the bottlenecks at the coding level. It's sad that paying consumers have to jump through hoops to get LR4 to perform even acceptably. I have loaded LR4.1 RC1, which is also a beta release, but don't see much difference. It's much slower than LR3.6. Hopefully, they will get it right soon and address these bottlenecks.

     

    I did a paid job today and uploaded about 75 images from my 5Dmk2. I used LR4 to upload, convert to DNG, had fast load data turned on, and had it create 1:1 previews. In the develop module, there is still an unacceptable delay when moving from image to image. Library module is fast, but develop module is slow. I have plenty of HDD space, reasonably fast drives, SSD for OS, programs and my cache, 16 GB RAM and 8 cores. It's not the fastest computer on the block, but it's no dog either. I pity the poor people with older computers.

     

    Given some time, I hope Adobe finds a way to process these images efficiently.

     

    Lou

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:30 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lou Dina wrote:

     

    Whenever I display ANY DNG image in my main import folder (this is the folder into which I always import my images for temporary evaluation), I do NOT get any writes to cache.

     

    This may be because fast-load data is enabled. See if you get writes to the cache when fast-load data is disabled - you may need to try it with virginal photos, since there is a chance Lr4 will read it when available and still fresh, but not write it, even when fast-load data is disabled.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:37 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Quote "In the develop module, there is still an unacceptable delay"

     

    Unlike the Library module that uses the previews for displaying image the Develop Module uses the Camera Raw cache and rerenders to display the original image with adjustments. Make sure you have allocated sufficient size relative to your Catalog. I have a catalog of approx 18,000 raw files and I have 40 GB for the cache and when I checked it today it had used 39.9 GB. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:39 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob,

     

    Yup....that's it. I decided to purge my cache and turn of fast load data. Then I imported an image into my standard Import folder. When I open the develop module, the other images (which apparently have fast load data embedded....even though some were imported into LR3 before this feature existed) do not write to cache. The new image (with fast load data disabled) definitely did write to cache. These are all DNG files.

     

    My only complaint is that fast load data ain't fast!!!

     

    Lou

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:41 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lou,

     

    Lr4.0 performs much better for me (e.g. sharpening shows up in a small fraction of a second when toggling sharpening on and off) - like Lr2.0/1 & Lr3.0/1 did, Lr4.0/1 obviously still has system dependent performance problems.

     

    My point is that it may be worth doing a little Sherlock Holmes-ing on your system to fix the problem. I realize you'd rather Adobe did it, and they might, but it may be a year from now in Lr4.6 before the fix for your particular case is handled...

     

    My apology in advance if this effort is already well under way...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:44 PM   in reply to DdeGannes

    Cache entries are so small now I could use a cache less than 1/10 of the size I needed in Lr3.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:46 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    I'm also on 4.1 RC1 now and it hasn't really made any difference. I've just taken the rather drastic move after backing up my data to convert the entire Raw catalogue to the 2012 processing version but it hasn't helped.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:48 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lou Dina wrote:

     

    My only complaint is that fast load data ain't fast!!!

     

    It's entirely possible that the underlying ACR caching technology hasn't changed in any revolutionary way. It's performance benefit used to be less than 15% max, perhaps the fast-load data gives similar improvement?

     

    Although I am curious, I probably won't be checking it, since a small performance boost is not sufficient reason for me to switch to DNG. A big performance boost would be enough reason...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 3:57 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob,

     

    You have zero to apologize for. I appreciate your knowledge, feedback and assistance, as always.

     

    I've been screwing around with lots of settings, caches, configurations, new catalogs, rendering 1:1 previews, turning sharpening on and off, etc. My computer, like lots of other people out there has plenty of power and available resources. This thing is a pig so far. I've also loaded LR4.1 RC-1. I'm getting burnt out on doing Adobe's job for them after paying for their "final" release (LR4.0, which is supposed to be the post-beta release). It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that they didn't know about many of these problems and the poor performance before releasing this product—they have a LOT of beta testers out there. Having spent many years in the corporate world, I am sure it was a management decision based on revenue generation. I'll continue to chip away, but decent baseline performance is their responsibility. Sorry....done venting.

     

    I can use LR4, but I'm not happy at all with the performance. Thankfully, I am not under a lot of pressure to perform, because this is NOT a productivity tool. LR3 was. I like some of the new features and prefer the new controls in the basic tab. Hopefully, they can get this pig to sing.

     

    Best, Lou

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 4:08 PM   in reply to jfriend0

    I tried playing with some sample Raw files earlier from the new Nikon D800 and it was painful. Right now I'm starting with a brand new catalogue and creating 1:1 previews from scratch. Let's see if that helps, though it didn't in the past. This took all night the last time I tried it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 4:21 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lou Dina wrote:

     

    My computer, like lots of other people out there has plenty of power and available resources.

     

    Indeed, assuming you've got at least a reasonable modicum of ram, these types of performance problems are due to things not playing nice with other things.

     

    Once you've exhausted the Lightroom-specific things, like preferences, caches, plugins, catalog... it's time to look at the non-Lightroom-specific things:

     

    Reboot with all non-essential services disabled..., or try a new graphics card...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 29, 2012 4:29 PM   in reply to jfriend0

    There is one bug still in Lr4.1 RC that has been identified for fix in Lr4.1 final:

     

    Go look at this comment

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 12:21 AM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Last night I created a brand new catalogue in Lightroom 4 to get away from any legacy from 3 that might be causing problems and then imported the whole lot again from their existing locations rather than an existing catalogue. I previously had my previews set to high quality 1680 pixels and to never discard but this time I tried 1440 pixels and it hasn't made a bit of difference. I've also just tried changing the previews on a small selection to medium quality but that is no faster either.

     

    When I select an image in Develop mode it says Loading at the bottom and a wheel spins for a couple of seconds. Then when I try to enlarge it sometimes says Loading again and generally takes 2-3 seconds before it changes from a pixelated blurred image into something sharp. It just shouldn't be like this on a machine with plenty of horsepower and masses of drive space where the previews have already been saved to cache. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 7:39 AM   in reply to ashleykaryl

    Ashleykaryl,

     

    Our systems seem somewhat similar, and my results are pretty much the same as yours. The software has problems and I think many of these problems will not be truly solved until the offending code is corrected, rewritten, made more efficient, addresses common conflicts, etc. There is no reason that our fairly robust systems should not work great with LR4. The suggestion that we upgrade is avoidance of the real problem, plus it's expensive. I can have Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Excel, Word, Firefox, LR3 and 3 or 4 other programs open simultaneously and they all work great—better than LR4  open all by itself!

     

    In the meantime, I continue to try different things to see if I can make the develop module a bit faster. Nothing seems to help very much so far. I've tried many of the suggestions recommended on this forum and elsewhere.

     

    Lou

     

    Mac Pro, dual 2.26 GHz processors, 8 cores, 64 bit, 16 GB RAM, 240 GB SSD, (3) 1TB HDDs @ 7200 rpm, Nvidia GeForce GT 120 video card with 512 MB VRAM, dual monitors (it doesn't help if one is turned off), OSX 10.6.8

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 9:30 AM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Hi Lou,

    I actually had the same model of computer as you up until about a month ago before Apple replaced it under warranty due to some ongoing problems. They replaced it with the 8 Core 2.4Ghz and in terms of clock speed there isn't much difference as confirmed by some bench tests I've seen, however the graphics card is supposed to be considerably faster and yet we have the same problem, so I certainly wouldn't rush out to spend money on a new graphics card.

     

    A few minutes ago I loaded up 4.1 RC1 on a fairly low end Windows laptop. It was a budget priced machine bought almost 3 years ago with 4 gigs of Ram and I imported 4 DNG files from the 1DsII as a test. It's clearly faster to preview images than the Mac and I'm not even sure the laptop has a dedicated graphics card plus it will be running a slow hard drive. This is ridiculous if you think about it.

     

    Furthermore, why was everything faster last night after purging the cache but slow again after starting again with a completely fresh catalogue? I'm inclined to think you are right that this is all down to poor coding, especially given that enlarged preview images snap into sharp focus instantly in Bridge on my Mac. I only hope Adobe are reading this and working on a solution.

     

    Ashley

    PS I just tried purging the cache again and the images are suddenly fast but how long will it last?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 3:22 PM   in reply to Lou Dina

    Lou,

     

    I confess, with what seems like should be vanilla hardware (Mac), it's hard to understand why there would be problems not found by Adobe.

     

    Once upon a time, when I was having a bad day with Lightroom, I tried Aperture on a pretty vanilla Mac and could not understand why it was an order of magnitude slower than it should have been. Had it performed well, I may be posting on an entirely different forum right now.

     

    Anyway, at the risk of stating the obvious, if it ain't the hardware, then it's the software. (and by software I mean bits on disk, be they program or data).

     

    I'm sure both you and Adobe want to solve this problem, but it may be that you can solve it quicker in your case.

     

    I mean, if you pull the disk drive out and all other non-essential hardware, then put in a new disk drive and reformat it / re-install the OS, then install Lightroom. Will it work well with a new catalog?

     

    I'm not saying this is a viable solution, although it may be. Simply knowing that it's possible for it to work well on your hardware/drivers may give hope. And knowing that it is *not* possible even on a squeaky clean system would mean you need a new computer if you want to run Lightroom before Adobe fixes it (or the problem lies with the core drivers).

     

    I don't mean that the hardware or drivers are bad, just that they are not playing nice with Lightroom, or if you prefer - vice versa.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 3:54 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I've just had a thought here. In my case all the Lightroom preview data files and the catalogue etc are stored on a drive that also contains all the images but not the OS because I read somewhere that this would deliver faster performance and yet the Lightroom default is to store all that info on the same drive as the main OS. I'm wondering if this may be part of the problem. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 4:00 PM   in reply to ashleykaryl

    I dunno. But the saying: "if it ain't working the way it is, then change something" springs to mind...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 4:18 PM   in reply to ashleykaryl

    ashleykaryl,

    It should not make a difference in the speed of Lr if you have the catalog on the same drive where your photos are. But if this is by any chance an external USB drive, then you'd better put the catalog on an internal drive even if you have only one.

    The USB connection is too slow and the catalog is constantly written to and read from, so there's quite a bit of traffic.

    Thus, while is helps to put the catalog on a different drive than where the OS and Lr reside, it is more important that the catalog is on a drive with a fast connection. For external drives that means only eSata drive would be fast enough for the catalog.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 4:23 PM   in reply to web-weaver

    No it was on an internal Sata drive alongside all the images. I've just copied the catalogue to the main drive and tried it from there but it's just as bad as before. I can't see any difference really.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2012 5:42 PM   in reply to ashleykaryl

    @ashleykaryl: " I've just copied the catalogue to the main drive and tried it from there but it's just as bad as before. I can't see any difference really."

     

    That last step, separating the catalog and the images, seemed to help me a bit when mine was having big problems. In your troubleshooting steps have you yet exported everything to a new catalog? This had a positive impact for me after originally having done a straight conversion from 3.6. Another thing for the check list is to make sure you are not automatically writing to .xmp. Mine has cleared up and is running very well now, even better with RC1. I don't think it was any one magic bullet that did it, rather covering a lot of different bases including video driver updates.

     

    I have just been building 1:1 previews for my folders as needed, one reason being it helps me benchmark how performance may be changing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 31, 2012 1:24 AM   in reply to SistersCountry

    @SistersCountry: Thanks for your suggestions. I feel like I've basically tried it all at this point. I started by importing the catalogue from LR3, then I tried updating all the previews and even took the step of converting every single image from PV2010 to PV2012.

     

    After this I even scrapped the catalogue entirely and started from scratch with a brand new one in LR4 by importing the images from the current position. In all of this the only thing that seems to work is purging the cache, which sees an instant improvement where everything happens in the blink of an eye but only for a short period before the slow down kicks in. I've always built the 1:1 previews at time of import partly becuase it's always been so slow otherwise and maybe that's the problem, though it absolutely shouldn't be and certainly Bridge is fine.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

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