PS will use whatever RAM it is allocated. How much do you give it? Since the OS needs less than 2 gig suppose it is moot with 28 gig.
History levels will have an influence here also.
Once you get over 8 g of RAM additional RAM is a diminishing return. So 16 g does not give 2X better performance.
Thanks for the reply!
My understanding and previous experiance is that it only uses what it needs to work the file up to it's allocation. Just now my home system was at 3.5 gigs of ram usage, I opened Ps Cs6 and it went up to 3.6gb, (not automaticly jumping to it's full allocaion), I opened up a 44.5 meg file and it went up to 4.27gb. I opened up a 590gb file and it goes to 9.43gb of ram usage.
Per my original post, a 48 meg file at work made my system jump to 10.6gb and had gotten as high as 14gb when I made my post. BUT I had gotten up to 20.6 at one point today!!! Not to far from it's max allocation All on a 48 meg file...? I could understand this if I was processing LOTS of 48 meg files at the same time, but it's just the one document...?
History states, and everything is at default except the graphics proccesor is set to advanced and everything is ticked but the 30 bit monitor since I don't have one. (same work/home) Home is set to 60% of RAM, work is set to 80% of RAM. Different systems, but the work system is way better than home...
Agree that 16gb doesn't mean twice the performance of 8gb. But it should mean that a file that needs more than 8gb to process is still doing so in RAM on a machine with 16gb, instead of having to write to the hard drive which is slower on a machine with less RAM than the file needs to process.
This is a mystery! Our IT dept is one guy now, they had two but outsourced to some company to do IT. And they do NOT have the experiance or expertise to help out! Most of their advice is based on what they've "heard" about photoshop... been kind of funny if it wasn't so frustrating!
Any other suggestions are welcome!
Perhaps someone with more knowledge will jump in here with the answer, I know just enough to make me dangerous.
When PS uses RAM and when scratch disk I have no idea. But layers can be a huge issue. With 147 that can add up. If you have a 42 meg file and do a gausian blur on the entire layer the file is now 82 meg, and so it goes.
It is not uncommon for the scratch disk to exceed 100 gigs.
You need to understand that file size and ram usage has little in common. Your layered File is compressed and some layer compress very well for some are nothing more then Photoshop setting in the file. The story is very different in memory. You state you have 147 layers but do not mention any about canvas size or anything about layer sizes for Photoshop support layers that are larger then canvas size as well as layers smaller then canvas size. Each layer has some memory requirements, Photoshop need memory for the composite view as well as display zoom level view. storage requirements add up very fast and often exceed available RAM thus swap space. If your document size is lets say an 8" x 10" 300DPI document the canvas size would be 2400px by 3000px that is 7.2Mpx if your editing in 16bit color each pixel would require 6 bites of memory. Your background layer would 43.2Mbytes in size. If all 147 layers were canvas size raster layers the requirement would be 6,350,400,000 bytes 6.3GB then you need to composite layer and your history states and your snapshots etc. Each view is like a background layer 43MB things add up fast 43MB a clip... And a history state may be much more I have no knowledge of how Adobe records history states. How much caching is done how many level you have set in your preference. As been pointed out scratch space exceeding 100GB has been seen. Use your file system explorer to check on Photoshop disk useage... while your editing you document.
I also notice Photoshop does not give back memory till you close it down. I opened a 8Mpx image 16bit mode ad duped the background 150 times could not net Photoshop to use much more then 1GB of RAM so I opened arond 30 200MB psd files and drove Photoshop RAM usage to around 22GB then closed all of them. Photoshop held onto the ram till I closed down Photoshop
Well I think file size and ram usage are related, especially as I'm just talking about opening the file here. If you open a 2meg file your RAM usage barely changes. If you open a 2gig file your RAM usage jumps significantly.
But I do agree that you can have a small file and be running lots of processes and you would be using lots of RAM even though it's a small file. (but it's not like you wouldn't be aware of what processes your running that's causing the RAM usage to increase) Or you could have a large file that is just a bunch of mostly white layers and it doesn't use much RAM to open it even though the file size might be larger than another file that has lots of color in it.
I guess I'm not sure I understand your example, but for sure there is much I still don't know about Ps even after all these years! I get that 147 layers each with 42 megs would be a file over 6 gigs. But one layer with 42 megs of data and 146 empty layers is still around a 42 meg file. If there is not data on the layers it doesn't take up much memory. I have probably a dozen or so layers that may have a meg or two of data. And then LOTS of layers that have indivicual elements that are just a few K. All of those layers together end up at 42 megs. (well actually my example from work was like 49 megs)
Anyway, I guess what I need here is an Apples to Apples example. So we know it's not just two different files using RAM differently due to their pixel content, etc. So I've opened this old file I had archived just now, it caused my machine to jump ~2.3 gigs of RAM usage when I opened it. It's a 24.3meg file, 81 layers, U.S. letter @ 300 dpi. Tomorrow I have to go in a few hours so I'll check what the work machine does with the same file...
Curt Y wrote:
Ps always uses the scratch, as well as RAM. From the instant you open a file or create a new document, Photoshop creates the scratch file, setting its size according to calculations it makes based on file dimensions and resolution, bit depth and color mode, number of layers, Rnumber of history steps, etc.
It moves stuff in and out of RAM from and into the scratch as needed, all the time.
The issue I was having is Pen lag on the Cintiq when I draw starts getting horrible as the RAM usage gets higher. I had been restarting Photoshop constantly to get it to release RAM. But I haven't the last couple days since they doubled the RAM in the machine. And obviously on restart the file still needed a lot of RAM???
Anyone got any sugestions? I can live with the lag, sucks, but I can still work.
It's a win 7 64 bit box, 2 Dual core 2.4 Xeons. two quadro 2000's, now 28GB ram, OS on a 560?GB drive with files on a Terrabyte drive that gets backed up. My hardrives arent rated very high, 5.9,
Your issue is stroke lag drawing. You state nothing about the brush and tool being used. Looking at your hardware and knowing Photoshop is using a lot of ram its most likely swapping a lot ram to scratch disk space. Faster disk may help. Also having two quadro 2000 does not improve Photoshop performance over having just one. Yes Photoshop does not give back RAM it allocate during a session even if you close all the open documents. This may well not be a bad thing. Photoshop is surly managing the RAM space it allocates. Having a lot of ram to work with may well cut down on Photoshop RAM swapping and speed thing up.
Your lag problem may not be a ram problem. Some brushes require GPU support and the size of the rush can easily increase lag. For example if I boot my machine and look at RAM used window 7 64bit professional I see 3.5GB allocated 36.5GB free. If I start CS6 open a new document 11"X 14" 300dpi fill it with a spectrum gradient I see 5GB of ram. In use. If I select the mixer brush tool and a large brush size and make quick brush strokes there is quite a bit of lag and my video card is a quadro 4000 a little faster then your quadro 2000. My swap space is on SSD much faster then spinning disk ratting 7.9 out of 7.9.... and I have dual 6 core xeons.
Some brush type tools like blur, smudge, dodge, burn sharpen require a lot of sequential repetitive processing .. a large tip smudge always seems lag on forever... Its the repetitive nature of the processes that cause the latency not so much the compute power.