Lightroom LR4 - Silly RAM usage!!

Apr 9, 2012 5:18 PM

• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  30. Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață,

  

  Apr 20, 2012 11:37 PM   in reply to GKN 100

  Report

  Move to 64 bit.

    Submit

  |

  Mark as:
• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  31. coffeefrog,

  

  Apr 21, 2012 4:46 PM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

  Report

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

    Submit

  |

  Mark as:
• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  32. John Spacey,

  

  Apr 27, 2012 7:30 PM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

  Report

  Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață wrote:

   

  Move to 64 bit.

  Please read the thread.

    Submit

  |

  Mark as:
• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  33. John Spacey,

  

  Apr 27, 2012 7:42 PM   in reply to John Spacey

  Report

  OK, seem to be getting somewhere now

   

  As stated in the OP I work in 64 bit Win 7. I have a win 7 32 bitpartition on the same machine I use for various things and also for testing Lightroom updates without upsetting my main LR work partition.

   

  Earlier tonight I isntalled 4.1RC2 on my win 7 32 bit partition and ahve been working on a shoot. Interestingly the RAN usage seems much better managed. Instead of progressviely creeping up to a point of ARRGHHH!!!, with RC2 memory is released when switching images. Great news!!   Now bearing mind I still need to stest this in my 64 bit martition and I will isntall RC2 once confident it wont' fall right over, but positive os far.

   

  ALSO, which I've just started testing is the negative cache disablement as described by Adfoibe Employee  Julie Kmoch here

   

  http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr4_0_reacts_ext remely_slow

   

  who said:

   

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

  Here's an update on what changed in RC2 relative to Develop performance.

   

  For starters, in RC1 we experimented with turning off sharpening while sliders were moving. We got a fair amount of negative feedback on that, and have reverted that behavior. Instead, we moved more of the rendering to a background thread, which keeps the sliders moving smoothly. One caveat with the behavior in RC2 is that those background renders can pile up if you're moving fast. The final 4.1 release will do a better job of trimming these when possible.

   

  I worked with a number of you who volunteered to try an experiment a couple weeks ago that turned off something we call negative caching. The results were mixed; a couple people said it was a clear improvement, others didn't see a benefit. But I'll offer it here in case it helps others who find performance starts out reasonably then suddenly, consistently goes south until a restart.

   

  What the following will do is turn off a cache which saves some of your most recent work done in Develop such that if you revisit a recently touched image, it loads faster. However, if our calculations are off, this cache can sometimes get too big and cause ACR to use virtual memory instead of RAM.

   

  To try it:

  1. Create a text file called “config.lua” and put the following line in it: AgNegativeCache.enabled = false

  2. Launch Lightroom, go to the Preferences dialog, Presets tab, and hit “Show Lightroom Presets Folder”.

  3. Close the Preferences dialog, quit Lightroom.

  4. Drop the attached config.lua file into the Lightroom folder that was opened in step 2 (do not put it in one of the preset subfolders). So the path to the file will look like this:

   

  Mac: /Users/[yourname]/Library/Application Support/Adobe/Lightroom/config.lua

  Win:  C:\Users\[yourname]\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Lightroom\config.lua

   

  You’ll know this switch to turn the cache off is working if you see the “Loading...” symbol even when you revisit the previously edited image in Develop. (When caching is on, you can often revisit a recently edited photo without the Loading warning showing.)

   

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

   

   

  I'll report back laters

    Submit

  |

  Mark as:
• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  34. rjh1007,

  

  Jul 2, 2012 9:48 PM   in reply to John Spacey

  Report

  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

    Submit

  |

  Mark as:
• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  35. GKN 100,

  

  Jul 3, 2012 4:39 AM   in reply to John Spacey

  Report

  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

    Submit

  |

  Mark as:
• 

  Currently Being Moderated

  36. 1234ewqrd,

  

  Jul 16, 2012 5:27 AM   in reply to John Spacey

  Report

  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

    Submit

  |

  Mark as: