Lightroom Classic CC import performance

[GeraldB]

Here is a data point. Someone may find it useful
I imported 125 D850 images (Lossless compressed 14 bit) into my 6 core i7 windows machine.
It took 8min 34 sec including building 1:1 previews.
Good news is that all cores/threads where working (lightroom only shows 2 parallel processes)
Bad news is that none were flatlined so something is still a bottleneck.

[hogloff]

How does this compare to the previous version of LR?

[Farmer]

Here is a data point. Someone may find it useful
I imported 125 D850 images (Lossless compressed 14 bit) into my 6 core i7 windows machine.
It took 8min 34 sec including building 1:1 previews.
Good news is that all cores/threads where working (lightroom only shows 2 parallel processes)
Bad news is that none were flatlined so something is still a bottleneck.

Have a look at your disk activity (read and write), and if you're using a NAS then check your network bandwidth.  Those three together should indicate any bottlenecks.

[john beardsworth]

For me, standard previews generate 4 times faster than Lr6, 1:1 previews 2 1/2 times faster (the 1:1 also generates standards). That's with tests of 500 images.

[Mark D Segal]

This is the kind of discussion that perhaps should have been carried in the thread created yesterday http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121124.0. That said, members are free to start new topics if they so wish of course, but it would just be so much more convenient to group all this technical performance stuff in one place rather than scouring multiple threads to find it all.

[GeraldB]

I thought that was about "issues" as in problems. I am Ok to move this if I can.

[Mark D Segal]

Ya - what prompted my response is that your O/P mentions a technical problem, so I thought it desirable to include there. I don't know whether this thread can be ported in there, but no big deal if it can't be. I just mentioned this for future reference to encourage people to use that thread.

[GeraldB]

Have a look at your disk activity (read and write), and if you're using a NAS then check your network bandwidth.  Those three together should indicate any bottlenecks.

I have the images on a 7200 rpm HD and catalog, cache on an ssd. Also I noticed that only 6 out of 32 Gb of RAM were used. Definitely room for improvement.

[Farmer]

I have the images on a 7200 rpm HD and catalog, cache on an ssd. Also I noticed that only 6 out of 32 Gb of RAM were used. Definitely room for improvement.

My bolding.  That's your bottleneck.  If it's reading data (images) from that HDD, then nothing else in your system is going to get even remotely close to 100% utilisation.

[hogloff]

Here are some benchmarks on various computer configurations. Pretty impressive from my view.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-Classic-CC-is-it-faster-than-CC-2015-1065/

[Alan Goldhammer]

Here are some benchmarks on various computer configurations. Pretty impressive from my view.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-Classic-CC-is-it-faster-than-CC-2015-1065/

I wonder why the HDR and Panorama tools are now slower.

[davidlandry]

I also wonder why HDR merge and Panorama are slower.  Could it be the new process version?
These are two of my favorite recent additions to Lightroom (and I am enjoying the new color and luminosity range masking as well).

[tomhogarty]

Pano and HDR are slightly slower in LrClassic due to changes to improve stability and reliability.  There were times when the merge process would hang or fail that should be fixed with this change.

Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

[pearlstreet]

Pano and HDR are slightly slower in LrClassic due to changes to improve stability and reliability.  There were times when the merge process would hang or fail that should be fixed with this change.

Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

Why is develop so slow in Lr classic? It takes forever for a new picture to load when I am going through the filmstrip. I have a high performance windows 10 system with 32gb of ram.

[paulster]

Why is develop so slow in Lr classic? It takes forever for a new picture to load when I am going through the filmstrip. I have a high performance windows 10 system with 32gb of ram.

I've found that, whilst overall it's more responsive, sometimes in Develop module it becomes slow as molasses and the CPUs cores will run flat out for a while.  Then it'll calm down and respond again, and then suddenly become impossibly slow again.  Memory usage during these periods is fine, so it doesn't appear to be paging or anything OS-related, as it's just the Lightroom process.

I don't know if it's kicking off background housekeeping or what, but on a fast i7 laptop with SSD it's absolutely unusable when it does this.

[Chris Kern]

Pano and HDR are slightly slower in LrClassic due to changes to improve stability and reliability.  There were times when the merge process would hang or fail that should be fixed with this change.

That's useful information, which I haven't seen elsewhere on any of the Adobe websites.  As a frequent user of the merge functions, I also have noticed this behavior.  It's helpful to know why you made the change.

I'm sure may of us who frequent these forums are pleased to see you posting here, Tom.  I don't think I'm speaking solely for myself when I say that I hope that this is an indication that Adobe is prepared to be more open in providing information publicly to its customers.