I have been using LR 2 and upgraded to LR 3.2. After I am running for
a while memory usage increases drastically. I have 2GB mem
ory on a XEON 4 Processor System and have never had memory problems up until now.
I am in the develop module and I get a message from Norton that LR is using 1.5GB memory and I have to restart LR 3.2.
I have seen some chatter on the Internet about a memory leak problem but cannot seem to find information about it being fixed.
I could add another GB of memory but XP SP3 max is 3GB anyway.
Can anyone tell me if there is a fix and where I might find it.
.. my 2 cents ..
Do you feel any issues in using LR when the message appears? If not, forget the message from Norton and just let use LR the available memory. What's the memory good for if not letting the apps just using it as long as no issues appear with the app itself or any other app running concurrently.
I AGREE! I am so frustrated with Lightroom 3.2! It works fine for a while, then all the sudden SLOWS DOWN and it happens every time I edit a shoot! Adobe has got to FIX THIS! It's not a computer problem.... it's a software problem and it happens every time! I'm thinking about switching to Aperture because this ONE problem is soooo frustrating. PLEASE FIX THIS, because I like the product, but hate the memory lag!
Memory issues have been around for a while. Basically, some operations (mostly in Develop) allocate of large blocks of memory from the OS. LR tends to keep the allocated blocks when not required. On my x64 environments, LR can allocate (and keep) up to about 4GB additional blocks after the base app is loaded prior to editing a single image. In some cases this is OK if your workflow is just LR.
But if LR is part of a larger workflow then all the apps are completing for memory and this is where the real issues begin. PS also does the same thing. So you can consume 6 or 8 Gig of RAM just having LR and PS open, but working in another app entirely...
Adobe is aware of this behavior (a high percentage of threads are about performance) – in some cases this is intentional design (you can also refer to endless threads on Moore’s Law accommodating mediocre software), but there are cases when memory was not correctly allocated and unintentionally held, and this is a bug.
Working with Adobe development is the only way of correcting this. The development team needs specifics to assist them. Help/System Info is a good place to start...
What's the page file size? Page file size + real memory = total memory available. So the fact that you have 2GB of real memory doesn't tell the whole story. If your page file size is 3GB, then you have 5GB of memory available to Lightroom and other apps (actually less because of OS requirements). In this case, Lightroom and other apps have plenty of memory available.
F. McLion's post is on the mark, ignore the message.
It's not a computer problem.... it's a software problem and it happens every time!
Well you can believe that, but it doesn't automatically make it true.
As has been explained on here umpteen times, there are so many interdependencies between the software and hardware on a computer that it's simply impossible to claim that "it's not a computer problem" until you've done some serious analysis of the problem at a local level. It could easily be down to your machine, and it doesn't matter that other software - or even previous versions of Lr - have behaved, that still doesn't prove a fault per se with the current version.
As to your "it happens every time!", and to underline that your assertion that the software is flawed is not necessarily true: it never, ever, ever happens to me.
I have a relatively modest machine ("only" 6gb of RAM on a Win 7/64 bit box that gets used for everything, not just imaging work) and I've frequently worked non-stop for an entire day/several hundreds of full-sized Canon 7D RAW files, without Lr so much as hiccuping once.
If it was an inherent Lr fault, why don't I have the same problems you have?
Most likely because I don't use your machine...
I am not sure who is replying to who. From the messages I received in response to my post there does not appear to be a good solution for me. I can add one more GB of memory to my system.
I don't know about being passionate but I would to have this problem fixed by Adobe.
I'm running LR under XP, SP3, just like you are. When I go to Help/System Info..., I see (among other stuff) Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB. Evidently, LR under XP limits itself to less than a gigabyte of real memory, and I've never seen it use more than that for more than a couple of seconds. Actually, I'd like LR to use more than that artificially low amount, but I can't find a way to induce it to do that.
So, either Norton is lying to you, or LR is lying to me. As some previous poster asked, does Lightroom actually act badly when Norton complains?At that point, what is Help/System Info telling you?
As to getting another gigabyte of memory goes, more generally helps and is the first hardware change one generally tries when tryiing to speed up one's system.
Not sure who is passionate? When your system gets slow, try sys info and post. SP3 x32 or x64? Different animals. There is a known memory leak issue around large DNGs, Develop and the x64 code base. What module? What tool(s)? Are you writing or caching XMP to the files? Pre-built previews or on-the fly? Longer term, more physical ram is much better. All the machines in this shop are now 8GB or over. Good luck.
Not sure who is passionate?
When your system gets slow, try sys info and post.
SP3 x32 or x64? Different animals. There is a known memory leak issue around large DNGs, Develop and the x64 code base.
What module? What tool(s)?
Are you writing or caching XMP to the files?
Pre-built previews or on-the fly?
Longer term, more physical ram is much better. All the machines in this shop are now 8GB or over.
Adding 1GB of RAM may help perk up your system some by reducing the paging that needs to be done, but Lightroom 32 bit is limited to something less than
1GB of physical/system RAM to reduce the "out of memory" problems that plagued 32 bit versions of Windows in particular beginning with Lightroom 2.1 I believe.
Technically, 32 bit versions of Windows can use 4GB minus the graphics card RAM.
Also, you can try increasing the max size of your page file or letting Windows manage it.
Keith, I apologize if I have surfaced an issue that caused you to think that this is the same old "crap". To me I looked at the forum as a place to seek knowledge and to seek a solution to a problem that locked up my system. The issue I questioned has never happened to me before and only seemed to begin with LR 3.2.
So if I am the source of your angst over this, please forgive as I meant no harm.
"Passionate"? No - just bored with reading the same petulant, clueless, whiney crap - like your post - time after time after time.
No one is forcing you to read these posts. Perhaps you need to find other hobbies.
Again, I guess I kicked over a hornet's nest when I asked a question that has apparently been around for a long time. "Whiney No! Uninformed Yes!
Yours and Keith's responses seem a little hostile but I will write them off as just frustration. I have rarely posted questions over the past 3 years and have been welcomed and helped previously.
Gentlemen, may the peace and joy of the upcoming holiday seaon favor you, all those you care about, and all who care about you!
Yours and Keith's responses seem a little hostile but I will write them off as just frustration.
No frustration or hostility here, I just don't like seeing someone being abused for asking a question.
you both need to make careful note of who - and what - I was responding to.
God knows, it's not hard - the person being replied to is indicated clearly enough at the top of each post (surely you've been on the board long enough to have figured this out, John?), but - for clarity - I was responding (helpfully and absolutely civilly at first, then more in keeping with his smartarsed, "flip-off" reply) to photojoe648.
I invite you both to have another look at his first post and my response, and what came subsequently, rather than simply assuming that I was having a go at grandpahenry...
I still think that your last response was over the line, no matter who you were replying too. I don't consider that civil discourse, even if you were frustrated by the other posters attitude.
you both need to make careful note of who - and what - I was responding to.
You might then decide to apologise - who knows, eh?