Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

Apr 9, 2012 5:18 PM

Tags: #lightroom #- #ram #lr4 #silly #usage!!

Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

 

Hi there

 

I'm stunned at the amount of RAM usage by LIghtroom. I have 6Gb of RAM using LR4 in 64 bit win7.

 

This is what happened when I opened lightroom to edit a shoot of jpgs, all of which were only about 3mb each ( I wasn't even editing 30Mb RAW files from my DSLRs )

 

[i]figures from task manager/performance pane[/i]:
**************************
No Lightroom

 

0.99 GB

 

Launch Lightroom and cat

 

1.53 GB

 

select next pic

 

2.00 Gb

 

select next pic (no editing yet )

 

2.20 GB

 

after editing two pics

 

3.13 GB

 

editing the 2nd pic in Nik Software Silver Efex pro 2 ( edit copy with lightroom adjustments ) and returning to lightroom

 

2.85 GB

 

but ....

 

Very soon, after only a few pics, the RAM usage is up to 5.5GB

 

*********************************************************************

 

This seems very disproportionate. Why for example would simply selecting another 3mb jpg eat up another 200Mb of RAM? And why after only a bit of editing on this 3mb pic in the develop module eat up another 900Mb of RAM?

 

The other highly annoying issue is that once Lightroom has decided to eat up nearly all my available RAM after editing only a few 3mb JPGs, things slow down rapidly. selecting another pic means everything locks up while their is vicious disk activity ( presumably swapping to swap file because Lightroom needs another 200Mb of ram for just one 3mb JPG )

 

it's not much fun having to quit LR every few images just to 'reset' thje amount of RAM.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 9, 2012 5:38 PM   in reply to John Spacey

    John Spacey wrote:

    Why for example would simply selecting another 3mb jpg eat up another 200Mb of RAM?

     

    The size of the compressed JPEG is irrelevant.  What matters is the pixel count.

     

    LR should use 8 bytes per pixel just for the image you are processing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 9, 2012 5:50 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Is LR completing any processes (export, rendering, etc)? Progress bars will appear in the top right corner.

     

    Is LR still building 1:1 thumbnails for all of your images? Just because you have just imported only 30 images doesn't mean that LR isn't doing other work with images imported previously. If you've setup LR to create 1:1 previews, if the process wasn't completed previously, then it will startup up again where it left off the last time you used it.

     

    As a proof of concept, try creating a new catalog, don't import any images. See if you still see the same kinds of RAM usage. Then add a couple images, see how it performs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 9, 2012 9:47 PM   in reply to John Spacey

    I have a similar problem on my macbookpro. As soon as I start LR I see that my inactive memory starts rising.

    Even if LR is not being used, ie at the moment, I'm watching  inactive slowly climb. At the moment its sitting at 2.26 Gb. Using PURGE in the terminal clears this inactive memory, but it slowly begins to climb again as soon as I start using LR again.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 8:00 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    LR should use 8 bytes per pixel just for the image you are processing.

    I would say 6 Bytes ... 16 bit processing (= 2 bytes) times 3 (RGB). But that does not really matter. The important point is that in either case it is a lot more than the original compressed file size, even for raws (that have a size of approx. 1...2 bytes per pixel). Furthermore, one has to take into account internal buffers when ACR passes image data through its pipeline, generates intermediate data for the ACR cache, database buffers,  etc., etc. (of course we do not know the internals here, but some buffers are certainly necessary).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 9:14 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Well, LR4 does not manage memory properly. An example I faced recently: remove 5000 photos from catalog - the memory will raise from 200MB to 1600MB (Win7). Wait an hour or 24 (does not matter), then remove another 5000 photos from catalog - the memory will raise from 1600MB to almost 3GB of RAM... etc...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 9:49 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Are you looking at memory specifically listed as being used by Lightroom, or are you looking at the total memory being used by Windows and all your programs? Windows will tend to fill all available memory with things that it thinks you might want in future (based on your past usage), but it frees it up as soon as a program wants it. I think Lightroom does some of the same, keeping things in memory in case you want to use 'undo'.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 3:23 PM   in reply to John Spacey

    From my experiences, memory usage can vary from one configuration to another for the exact catalog/image combo -- HW and OS config do play a role here...  One guy can be crusing along with LR consuming 1.5G and another similar situation gobbles up 5.6G...  Now the 5.6G would really only be an issue if LR did not release the memory when not needed (garbage/heap management) --- this was a well documented issue with previous LR releases...  There was a fairly serious memory leak in LR3 (and I think in LR2) that took a while to sort out (only expressed itself in a particular set of circumstances).  My hardware configuration (SLI w/ dual 30” HD monitors) seems to expose boundary condition problems in the code base.

     

    Haven’t played with LR4 yet – learned my lesson from previous LR releases – I now wait until the .1 release is gold prior to updating. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 8:28 PM   in reply to John Spacey

    Windows 7 will on its own fill all available RAM with cached disk data. You can learn more here:  http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-mem ory-usage-scaremongering.ars and http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-ready boostanalyzed,1532.html

     

    What you really want to watch for is PAGING and . That is all that really matters. You would need to enable the column in the task manager called "Page Faults", and see where those are occuring.

     

    Also, you should disable your virus scanner (like MS Security Essentials) for all your raw file types, the directories that contain your raw files, and the lightroom process itself.

     

    You can get actual data from Lightroom itself Help|System Info, which will give you more useful information:

     

    Lightroom version: 4.1 RC [820174]

    Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition

    Version: 6.1 [7601]

    Application architecture: x64

    System architecture: x64

    Physical processor count: 8

    Processor speed: 2.6 GHz

    Built-in memory: 6135.1 MB

    Real memory available to Lightroom: 6135.1 MB

    Real memory used by Lightroom: 270.3 MB (4.4%)

    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 261.1 MB

    Memory cache size: 138.1 MB

    System DPI setting: 96 DPI

    Desktop composition enabled: Yes

    Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 11, 2012 12:45 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    I don't think you have said how many drives you are using? I hope you haven't got your system, pagefile, catalog, previews, acr cache, and images all on one drive!

     

    LR does rely on your hardware/software working properly - we/you don't know that it is, do we/you?

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 11, 2012 3:35 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Hi John,

     

    I work with RAW though one would think that would be more taxing, I don't

    have memory issues. Have you disabled OpenGL?. You should really try that

    if you haven't.

     

    I have no memory leaks in 4 or 4.1. I have run VMMap for hours to be

    certain.

     

    4.0 was slow with multiple monitors but they seem to have fixed that in 4.1.

     

    Sorry if I couldn't help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 12, 2012 2:22 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    From: "John Spacey

    I will cotninue to see if there is anything regarding mys system that can

    be done to lessen this ram usage issue though. I'll certainlytry the Open

    GL thing  http://forums.adobe.com/people/jsakhtar jsakhtarmentioned above.

     

    How big is your pagefile?

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 13, 2012 4:04 PM   in reply to jsakhtar

    jsakhtar wrote:

     

    (...)

    Have you disabled OpenGL?

    I thought LR does not use OpenGL like Photoshop. At least there seems to be no option to disable it. Or did you mean to disable OpenGL in the video card driver? And are you really sure that OpenGL is connected to RAM usage?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 13, 2012 5:08 PM   in reply to LRuser24

    I think in LR 4.1 they added some verbiage saying that it was only used for video. There is an option in the preferences panel to enable or disable it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 13, 2012 5:13 PM   in reply to jsakhtar

    Thanks for the pointer to that setting! I didn't really notice it before

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 13, 2012 9:16 PM   in reply to John Spacey

    I've seen this behaviour too and periodically have to restart Lightroom to get the process' committed memory back down tom something sensible.   In my case on Vista.  I suspect that something in particular triggers the behaviour because I don't see it every time I use Lightroom. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 14, 2012 12:37 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    From: "John Spacey

    Hi Bob. i'ts 6.2Gb - Could you explain how hard drive setup would affect

    RAM usage before swapfile is invoked? I can't see how Hard Drives would

    cause lightroom to not release RAM?

     

    Lightroom works fine on my Win7x64 with multiple drives, so I'm wondering

    what is different about your computer that produces your problem.

     

    I do have more RAM than you (16GB) but the system (including LR) only

    usually uses about 2.5-3.5 GB RAM, while Windows uses various amounts for

    cacheing - just over 4GB at present, making 6.5GB in total use (2,5GB 'in

    use', and 4 GB 'on standby' as Windows reports in Resource Monitor),  but I

    have seen Windows fill nearly all the 'free' memory. You talked about 'disk

    thrashing' when the pagefile was in use; an SSD can't thrash, can it? Mine

    works totally silently!

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Calculating status...
    Apr 20, 2012 12:31 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    I'm seeing the same problem ever since moving to LR4. The RAM usage sucks and especially if you are trying to use any Nik plugins.  LR4 just goes out to never never land for no reason on my Win7 32 bit machine. I taken all unnecessary files out of startup and still get poor performance. I love LR4's Basic controls but I'm almost ready to go back to LR3 for faster performance and editing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 20, 2012 1:55 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Bob,

    I can't see where "thrashing" got introduced into the thread or by who, but some background on the term might be useful.  It refers to lots and lots of disk activity, not to any noise.  Referring to memory, it usually means that the computer is writing virtual memory out to disk (the page file) and reading it back in over and over because it has run out of free RAM and the active part of the memory has gotten much bigger than the RAM can hold.  When this happens the machine can slow down to a complete crawl, screen redraws get very very slow (in the worst case it can be like a blind being pulled down slowly) and the machine appears to lock up because it is spending all of its time reading and writing memory to and from the disk.

     

    Greg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 20, 2012 6:11 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Lightroom 4 is a waste of my money ... It is so slow!! ... keep getting a message cannot export image ... I even tried LR 4.1 RC but still the same ... hasn't Adobe done any QC before shipping the product??

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 20, 2012 9:02 PM   in reply to jsakhtar

    jsakhtar wrote:

     

    Windows 7 will on its own fill all available RAM with cached disk data. You can learn more here:  http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/02/behind-the-windows-7-mem ory-usage-scaremongering.ars and http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-ready boostanalyzed,1532.html

     

    What you really want to watch for is PAGING and . That is all that really matters. You would need to enable the column in the task manager called "Page Faults", and see where those are occuring.

     

    Also, you should disable your virus scanner (like MS Security Essentials) for all your raw file types, the directories that contain your raw files, and the lightroom process itself.

     

    You can get actual data from Lightroom itself Help|System Info, which will give you more useful information:

     

    Lightroom version: 4.1 RC [820174]

    Operating system: Windows 7 Home Premium Edition

    Version: 6.1 [7601]

    Application architecture: x64

    System architecture: x64

    Physical processor count: 8

    Processor speed: 2.6 GHz

    Built-in memory: 6135.1 MB

    Real memory available to Lightroom: 6135.1 MB

    Real memory used by Lightroom: 270.3 MB (4.4%)

    Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 261.1 MB

    Memory cache size: 138.1 MB

    System DPI setting: 96 DPI

    Desktop composition enabled: Yes

    Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200

    Sorry for my ignorance - how do you enable all built in memory available to LR? I have 3.25 GB RAM but only 716.8 MB real memory is available to LR

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 20, 2012 11:37 PM   in reply to GKN 100

    Move to 64 bit.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 21, 2012 4:46 PM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

    And of course are you advising buying an infinite amount of memory in addition to the new hardware to deal with a software bug?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 2, 2012 9:48 PM   in reply to John Spacey

    John

    Thanks

    I tried successfully your negative caching steps.  So far there has been a very decided improvement.  Since each of my raws are 24+ mps every time I touched one I would watch the ram usage climb in task manager/ process/ lightroom.  If I worked on the image using the adjustment tools every stroke increased the ram usage.  I was often well in excess of 6 gb and then if I round tripped to PS for my Nik filters or any other addtional adjustment PS also wouldn't release memory.  As others have complained LR would either freeze for a period of time or become extremely slow.  While I haven't figured out how to release the PS ram your negative caching has help immensely in LR.

    Question - why on earth isn't this part of the code?

    Do you know a way to release the same memory problems in CS5?

    Thanks

    Bob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2012 4:39 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Thanks for the details re negative caching - it has worked a treat - seems like a totally different piece of software now - I don't have to restart LR after editing 3-4 images! It had an earth-shattering effect ...... Lightroom started to run fast, and then immediately I then had to endure a 7.0 earthquake!!

     

    I also saw this post ....http://photocamel.com/forum/computers-software/162752-help-lightroom-4 -1-slow-performance-problems.html which discusses the issue of corrupted preference files and offers a solution

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2012 5:27 AM   in reply to John Spacey

    Hi John,

    I tried the negative cache lua file, and so far as I can tell, it has evened out the performance. I don't seem to be getting a slowdown when doing spot, brush, grads etc.

     

    My normal raw file is from a D90 and I even tried messing with a D800 NEF I'd downloaded. Although it was slower (I've just got a dual core 2.6ghz with 8gb ram) it went acceptably.

     

    How on earth did you find out about that fix?

     

    Interestingly (or not, I suppose it depends on your level of interest), i was looking at the Windows performance monitor and I saw that the CPU went to about 50% even when I was simply moving the cursor around the image. That was the same with any size nef file.

    My memory has remained fairly stable (I believe some have seen what appears to be memory leak behaviour).

     

    I'd tried all other fixes offered in the forum.

     

    with thanks,

    Hans

     
    |
    Mark as:

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