Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 4.x

Aug 6, 2012 3:58 PM

  Latest reply: Victoria Bampton, Dec 18, 2012 11:37 AM
Replies 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 43 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 16, 2012 11:50 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    I have just been using LR4.1 and happened to be printingfrom my Firefox browser as well. It locked up LR for several seconds. I mention this as it might be a clue as to what is going on. Memory leak maybe, with the printer driver over-writing some memory address LR was trying to use? The developers need all the info they can get I'd guess.

     

    Intel i5, 16Gb RAM, Win 7 64 on one SSD, another SSD for cache/catalog, Images on SATA mechanical.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 10:34 AM   in reply to bcw99

    After weeks of absolutely nasty performance with LR4.1 I today tried the trick someone posted here a while ago. I started LR via a batch file:

     

    start "lightroom" /high /affinity 15 "c:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1\lightroom.exe"

     

    And to my surprise it WAAAAAAAY faster! I know that developing multithreaded apps is quite demanding but what Adobe's dev delivered until now is just CRAP!

     

    My machine: i7-3930 hexacore, up-to-date chipset X79 and two fast SSDs and 16 GB RAM - more than fast enough you would think...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:06 PM   in reply to Sacha_

    Sacha_ wrote:

     

    After weeks of absolutely nasty performance with LR4.1 I today tried the trick someone posted here a while ago. I started LR via a batch file:

     

    start "lightroom" /high /affinity 15 "c:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1\lightroom.exe"

     

    And to my surprise it WAAAAAAAY faster! I know that developing multithreaded apps is quite demanding but what Adobe's dev delivered until now is just CRAP!

     

    My machine: i7-3930 hexacore, up-to-date chipset X79 and two fast SSDs and 16 GB RAM - more than fast enough you would think...

    Did you try setting affinity and priority for the LR application through the Task Manager first? I am just curious about that verses via a batch file?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:07 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    It is the same resutls just the bat is easier since its a one click launch.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:18 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    Thanks SavagePhoto. That was the piece I was looking for.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:35 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    You go tmy attention.  LR has been giving me fits!  I am reloading it daily and Adobe support has no clue what they are doing.  I was thinking I needed to completely remove LR and start over but would like to give this solution a try.

     

    Could you explain how to create a batch from your code.

     

    I tried pasting it into the apple script editor but it wont run.

     

    Thanks for the adivce!

     

    Troy

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:42 PM   in reply to Jonz

    I wish I could help but I have no idea how to do this on a mac.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:44 PM   in reply to Jonz

    Sacha_'s script is Windows-only.

     

    Note: I start Lightroom at below-normal priority, so multiple simultaneous exports don't influence video watching etc, and it does not affect Lr performance.

     

    I recommend checking whether it's the priority or the affinity that is helping the most.

     

    If it's the former, then perhaps some other app or service is competing for CPU, if it's the latter, then you've been bit by a bug  that's keeping Lr from using all cores as it should - dunno what the origin of such a bug would be...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:46 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    Thanks for the reply.  I see in your signature now.  LOL  At least I now know its not a platform specific problem

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:53 PM   in reply to Jonz

    When I was developing/troubleshooting this bat I found that the affinity was most important. On my system I have 4 acutal cores and 4 hyperthread. If I use ANY hyperthread performance dies. If I use all 4 main cores performance slows. By setting it to use only 3 main core and then setting the priority to high windows does a nice job of leaving LR alone and running most everything else on the remaining main and Hyper cores. My results were undenyable that LR has issues with hyperthreading at least on my intel chip and asus motherboard.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 12:53 PM   in reply to Jonz

    Up to 74 pages on just this thread, and no real solutions from Adobe.  My biggest issue is the lag switching between modules after first starting LR4.1.  Specifically, it takes upwards of 25 seconds for the Book module to load the first time (this, on a 2010 MBP with a 7500 rpm drive and 8gigs of RAM). 

     

    When Mountain Lion comes out next week, LR4.1 will most likely be replace by Aperture.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:01 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    SavagePhoto wrote:

     

    When I was developing/troubleshooting this bat I found that the affinity was most important. On my system I have 4 acutal cores and 4 hyperthread. If I use ANY hyperthread performance dies. If I use all 4 main cores performance slows. By setting it to use only 3 main core and then setting the priority to high windows does a nice job of leaving LR alone and running most everything else on the remaining main and Hyper cores. My results were undenyable that LR has issues with hyperthreading at least on my intel chip and asus motherboard.

     

    I hope you have forwarded this information to the Lightroom team.  I'm on a MacBook Pro and haven't yet found the tools to disable specific cores or hyper-threading.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:07 PM   in reply to Bob_Peters

    Agree!!!!!

     

    Only think that KILLS me is that there is only one tool keeping me in LR over Capture One and that is the brush masking.... There are many other ways to do use this but I use this A LOT and no other process seems as seamless. Unfortunatly on PC there isnt another Raw app that does this as well. However the final results are better with the free Raw Therapy and Capture One.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:18 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    SavagePhoto wrote:

     

    My results were undenyable that LR has issues with hyperthreading at least on my intel chip and asus motherboard.

    I hear ya. My ASUS+AMD board has no such problems (M4A89GTD): all cores shoot through the roof when doing something that warrants multiple cores. - mostly speedy too (some things are slow due to Lr s/w design...).

     

    I've never heard of any other problems with AMD chips, but maybe that's because so few people seem to be running them.

     

    My Advice: Get an AMD chip!!!

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:22 PM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    SavagePhoto wrote:

     

    ...there is only one tool keeping me in LR over Capture One and that is the brush masking....

    I rarely use the brush masking. The one thing that keeps me using Lr over C1 is the quality of results (ok 2 things: I depend heavily on Lr plugins).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:28 PM   in reply to BigCPixelbender

    BigCPixelbender wrote:

     

    My biggest issue is the lag switching between modules after first starting LR4.1.

    Really? Lr only loads modules upon first use - it's a design thing. But 25 seconds sounds abnormally long. (I just checked, Book module takes several seconds to load (first time only), but not anywhere near 25). Anybody have any idea why it's taking "BigC"'s system so long to load Book module? - disk is healthy?

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:34 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    BigCPixelbender wrote:

     

    My biggest issue is the lag switching between modules after first starting LR4.1.

    Really? Lr only loads modules upon first use - it's a design thing. But 25 seconds sounds abnormally long. (I just checked, Book module takes several seconds to load (first time only), but not anywhere near 25). Anybody have any idea why it's taking "BigC"'s system so long to load Book module? - disk is healthy?

     

    Rob

     

    I know exactly why it's taking so long.  Comptetition.  There isn't any.  LR needs to have more comptetition. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:40 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    The disk is fine.  It's a 500gig 7400rpm HD with about 20% of the space used.  2010 MBP with Intel i5 2.3GHz, 8gigs of RAM.  There's no real reason for the length of time it takes for the modules to load.  And yes, I've even tried doing a clean install of Lion.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:41 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I responded in his other thread. It is disk load time to bring the templates into memory from disk.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:46 PM   in reply to Another Photographer

    I know you're miffed. But, seriously: why 25 seconds to load the Book module - that sounds abnormal to me.

     

    I mean, if Lr were performing abnormally for me, I'd be miffed too. - it's one thing to be disappointed with a normally functioning Lr, and another entirely if your perception of Lr is being influenced by abnormal performance issues.

     

    Believe me, I have my gripes too, but Lr is mostly fast in develop mode, once loaded, and mostly fast in library mode, once previews are available. So I am mostly happy with Lr performance. I have my complaints, but it's *far* from "unusable" or "molasses in winter"...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 1:50 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    Rikk Flohr wrote:

     

    It is disk load time to bring the templates into memory from disk.

    Does 25 seconds for first load not sound abnormal to you?

     

    I can load gigabytes in 25 seconds.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:36 PM   in reply to BigCPixelbender

    BigCPixelbender wrote:

     

    There's no real reason for the length of time it takes for the modules to load.

    I wouldn't be so sure. I mean, it sounds like you're on the "Lr4 is pure yuck" track, but you may be seeing it through yuck colored glasses...

     

    Book module took about 8 seconds to load (the very first time ever). But now after Lr restart it comes up in about 1 second, first time (subsequent times are instantaneous).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:02 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Just measuring bit-throughput, it is slow. But how many templates have to be loaded (many files take longer than one file) and what has to be done with them?  It is 300 mb of data read from disk in descrete chunks.

     

    In the other thread I reported 8 seconds for the first load of Book. 

    After killing Lightroom and letting memory relax, Book takes 2 seconds to load on a subsequent load of LR

    in the same session going to develop and back to book takes less than a second.

     

    8 Seconds VS 25  on similar RPM disks (yet different data buses) is a breeze. I would be cheesed at 25 seconds but I don't notice 8.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:23 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    First time with Book on an old (2.5 Ghz Core 2 Duo) MBP took over 25 secs to load, but subsequent loads are 2-3 secs. Now I have run Book on this catalog before-it lives on a FW800 external, but not this machine. 25 secs everytime would be painful.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:28 PM   in reply to Seán McCormack

    I have a 2009  2.4 GHZ Core Duo MB (the month before they turned my model into a MBP) with 4 GB of RAM catalog on local drive. Load time for book is 15 seconds initially. 2 seconds subsequently.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:35 PM   in reply to BigCPixelbender

    BigCPixelbender wrote:

     

    The disk is fine.

    I'm assuming you've double-checked this, as opposed to just assuming.

     

    But, there should be a light-bulb pulsing inside your mind: "something *isn't* fine".

     

    Don't get me wrong: I have no stake in whether you use Lr or switch to another app... (my aim is not "defensive") - the best one to use is the one that runs the best...

     

    If Lr is behaving abnormally, its probably due to a bug in Lr - and I probably have gone on too long about it already - sorry...

     

    The disk I use for templates is the same as system disk, paging disk, temp disk, program disk...(but not catalog disk, and not photo disk) - not high performance... (and medium-powered system), but my book module loads *much* faster than yours. Hmmmmm......

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:43 PM   in reply to Rikk Flohr

    Going back to Rikk's reply of 8 seconds to load Book...

     

    I never use the book module, so I"ve not tried to load it previously.  But, just for fun I just fired it up from Develop......  And started counting seconds on the wall clock...  I kid you not, and I'm not exaggerating........  It took almost 40 SECONDS for the thing to load and display...  So, whatever's going on with the 25 seconds, I"m seeing it too.  Once it loaded, I could go back and forth between Book and Develop in a second, but the initial load was incredibly slow.

     

    And I'm not using the batch file to start things...  During that 40 seconds I watched CPU 0,2, and 4, and they were very busy, although aggregate Usage was in the 25% range (which I presume wants to check all 8 threads, of which I"m only using 3)...

     

    Does the book module take a long time for the initial load for other PC users?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 2:59 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    8 Seconds on my speedy new PC. 15 on my 3-year old MB 13inch.  In any case, 25-40 seconds seems like something is going awry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:01 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    ...It took almost 40 SECONDS for the thing to load and display...

    I postulate this is abnormal performance, and indicative of some problem. Does anybody disagree?

     

    PS - after loading, switching to the book module is almost instantaneous for me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:13 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Yes, once it loaded I could switch into and out of the Book module as quickly as any other.  It was only the initial load that was incredibly slow.

     

    I also shut down LR, restarted it, and went back into Book, and it only took a second or 2...

     

    It does load a lot of SOMETHING 'cause memory usage jumped from what it was initially (I didn't look) to right around 4.5 GB, of which lightroom.exe is just under 2GB.  So something is doing a lot of something.  Again, I don't use Book, so I'm not sure if there's some bizarre thing mine is doing by default...

     

    Rikk, on your speedy new PC are you loading everything from SSDs?  'Cause otherwise, presuming we're all using 7200 rpm SATA drives, once the CPU hands a request off to the disk, everything goes on hold until the data comes back, so I'm not sure why there's such a drastic performance difference... 

     

    When you jump from Library to Develop, and start walking through RAW images, do you have a feel for approximately how long the "Loading" stays on?  'Cause that's one area I see as extremely slow compared to V3.  And my RAW files are just 12 megapixel D300 files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:23 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    No SSDs on my machine.  I am waiting for larger capacity.

     

    1-2 seconds loading for uncached images Library to Develop Canon 5DMKII files.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 3:32 PM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    When you jump from Library to Develop, and start walking through RAW images, do you have a feel for approximately how long the "Loading" stays on?  'Cause that's one area I see as extremely slow compared to V3.  And my RAW files are just 12 megapixel D300 files.

    It takes about 2-4 seconds for me, depending on editing (D300 raws), which is a little slower than Lr3 (which is to be expected due to CA, NR, & PV), but not a lot slower (win7/64, AMD).

     

    Note: I have turned loading indicator off, since I can start editing after about 1 second.

     

    PS - I have catalog & previews on SSD, and separate (plain vanilla internal) hard disks for system (including Lr program) and data (photo files).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 17, 2012 4:46 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Yup, that's about the times I'm seeing for D300 .dng files........

     

    My perception is that it's SIGNIFICANTLY slower - taking at LEAST twice as long to finish loading as V3, but even if it's only 25% slower, that's a lot.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 12:51 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    ...even if it's only 25% slower, that's a lot.

    As a point of reference, very rough guestimate for me: PV2010 is 10-15% slower, and PV2012 is 25-50% slower. Significant, to be sure, but not extreme. And, I consider this "normal" performance.

     

    I see some people reporting >100% slower - that's extreme (and abnormal). Anyway, I think it's worth keeping in mind whether we're talking about normal slowness vs. abnormal slowness.

     

    Lr4's auto CA is more CPU intensive, as is defringe, and NR and such are being applied at all magnifications now - time is the cost: this should be expected. Personally, I'd like to see some optimization, but my point is that it's normal...

     

    And, PV2012 is more sophisticated, and takes more CPU - expect PV2012 to be signficantly slower compared to PV2010. But if it's too much slower - you got a bugaboo problem.

     

     

    davepinminn wrote:

     

    Yup, that's about the times I'm seeing for D300 .dng files........

     

    taking at LEAST twice as long to finish loading as V3

    Anyway, if Lr4 is over twice as slow as Lr3, then you have abnormal Lr4 performance. However, the times I quoted for D300 raws (2-4 seconds), which you say are over double what you saw in Lr3, are not anywhere near double for me. Are you saying that you were able to render D300 raws in less than 1-2 seconds in Lr3? - not me, maybe I had abnormal Lr3 performance and didn't even know it...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 12:36 AM   in reply to DavePinMinn

    From: "davepinminn

    Does the book module take a long time for the initial load for other PC

    users?

     

    2-3 seconds for my fast desktop PC (SandyBridgeE i7 3930, with SSDs) -

    slightly quicker than going into Develop for the first time. After the first

    time, both are near instantaneous.

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:04 AM   in reply to Sacha_

    After weeks of absolutely nasty performance with LR4.1 I today tried the trick someone posted here a while ago. I started LR via a batch file:

     

    start "lightroom" /high /affinity 15 "c:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1\lightroom.exe"

     

     

    This actually slowed my LR4 down by half on an i7 with 16Gigs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:14 AM   in reply to SavagePhoto

    From: "SavagePhoto

    My results were undenyable that LR has issues with hyperthreading at least

    on my intel chip and asus motherboard.

     

     

     

    No difference between hyperthreading enabled and disabled on my Intel i7

    3939 on Intel mobo. LR is fast with both.

     

    Has anyone with problems tried running the latest version of Intel's INF

    program, that tells the chipset how to communicate with the various bits of

    the computer? Some of these problems seem like internal communication

    problems. And loading the latest Bios for your mobo would be a good idea;

    that also cures bugs in internal communications.

     

    Just a thought!

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:18 AM   in reply to SistersCountry

    This actually slowed my LR4 down by half on an i7 with 16Gigs.

     

    Strange! I'm running Win 7 btw.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 1:22 AM   in reply to bob frost

    Great idea Bob.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 18, 2012 10:22 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    I've never used Book, but I tried it today.  It took 4 seconds to get into the Book module (or at least until I get an error message saying there were too many images or something).  It took a similar amount of time to get into Develop Mode.

     

    It seems like there are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that think 4 seconds is great (the "Modals") and those that think 4 seconds stinks (the "Nonmodals").

     

    The Modals have bought into Adobe's thinking.  They dutifully work in one Module for hours, then they move to the next Module, and the next Module.  They don't move back and forth much if at all.  They are deadly efficient.  They are communists.  Kidding.

     

    The Nonmodals crave freedom.  When they read about "photo-centric workflow" in the marketing literature, they thought it meant I can do what I want when I want to the photo.  Awesome!  I can look at a bunch of photos, increase the contrast in one, make one black and white, print one, look for all of my Tahiti shots, make a book, print a photo in any order I want. 

     

    No!  To all you Nonmodals out there, this is not Lightroom.  Lightroom was written by the Modals for the Modals.  Some Nonmodal ideas creep in here and there (such as Collections being included in Develop Mode), which confuses the issue.  But at the end of the rainbow, Lightroom is a Modal program at heart.  For the Nonmodals, if it took 1 second to switch from Library to Develop, that would be too much.  In fact even the act of switching is counterproductive and creativity-inhibiting. 

     

    My advice to Nonmodals (you know who you are): learn to love it, live with it or go elsewhere.

     

    I confess to being a Nonmodal.  I cannot efficiently and mercilessly go through a thousand photos adding keywords and ratings before trying to "Develop" the best one I see.  Ok, maybe I am a Seminonmodal because sometimes I try to pick out the best 12 pictures before I start developing.  But deep down I want to jump around.  That is how my creative energy flows.

     

    Modals are just as valid as Nonmodals, but whenever attacking or defending Lightroom, we all need to recognize that it is not a swiss army knife.  It is a tool for Modals to get their work done, and us Nonmodals have to bear it because there is no competition that does the same stuff.

     

    I've read that Aperture is Nonmodal, but that doesn't help PC users much because it is written for Apple and probably has other issues any way.

     

    Apart from the Modality issue, I do think that Adobe purposely skruwed with users by releasing what was essentially a beta product and then FORCED users to upgrade because it dropped support for the latest cameras (Nikon D800 and Nikon D4) in LR3.  I mean come on, even the biggest fanboys and girls can see that, can't you?  Btw, if they hadn't pulled that stunt, there would be a lot less complaining because many people who didn't like LR4 for any reason would have stuck with LR3 for a short while until it got ironed out.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 43 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (3)

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