Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: AFairley on January 20, 2015, 10:07:15 pm
-
Would I notice a difference in LR performance between these two drive speeds if the image files themselves are on a fast drive? I do tend to keep "write changes to file" turned on.
-
Yes
-
Do you mean the "Automatically write changes into XMP" option is turned on? That writes to wherever your image files are, not the catalogue. I don't know what the performance impact is of keeping image files (as opposed to the catalogue) on a 7200 rpm drive vs. a 5400 rpm drive - I've had a 7200 rpm drive for years.
However, I noticed a big performance improvement when I moved the catalogue (and previews) to an SSD. I also have the camera raw cache on the SSD. I think it is these three - catalogue, previews (which are always in the same folder as the catalogue) and camera raw cache - that have the main impact on performance.
-
Would I notice a difference in LR performance between these two drive speeds if the image files themselves are on a fast drive? I do tend to keep "write changes to file" turned on.
Without knowing your system configuration and how you typically use Lightroom I don't think it is possible to answer the question correctly. Have to tried to turn off the write changes option? Really you should never really need this anyway.
-
don't think it is possible to answer the question correctly.
It would take a very non-standard machine spec or unusual usage of Lightroom, not to see any benefit from a fast catalogue drive.
I've done the 5400 > 7200 > SSD drive upgrades on machines running Lightroom and for each upgrade you see an improvement in catalogue performance. 5400 > 7200 is noticeable, moving to SSD can be quite dramatic.
-
Have to tried to turn off the write changes option? Really you should never really need this anyway.
Call me paranoid, but I always leave it on. It's an extra backup of my edits. I tried a while ago turning it off, and it didn't appear to have any impact on performance, as far as I could tell.
-
Call me paranoid, but I always leave it on. It's an extra backup of my edits. I tried a while ago turning it off, and it didn't appear to have any impact on performance, as far as I could tell.
I understand your thinking, but it is only a part of what you don't want to loose if you use Lightroom heavily. In any case the key is to backup your catalog very regularly. Not only system backup where the catalog is included but also the Lightroom backup function where you Lightroom can check the integrity of the catalog and make a copy of it. I do that after every major amount of edits and also regularly between them. I delete the catalogs older than the most recent backup in the backups folder.
You could argue that if you loose the current catalog and you have to revert to a previous version that the xmp files (or edits saved in DNG and TIFF files) could be rescued if you reimport the folders edited since the last catalog backup, but that would be a tedious effort to find all the edited files that are not in the catalog. The only real exception I can think of is new folders added since the last catalog backup.
What you don't have in the edits is virtual copies, collections, publish folders. So really write edits to files is a bit of false security.
Unless you do systematic performance tests, I think it is difficult to be sure about the effect. Most people don't do that and don't know how to do it either. Not saying you don't ;D
-
It would take a very non-standard machine spec or unusual usage of Lightroom, not to see any benefit from a fast catalogue drive.
I've done the 5400 > 7200 > SSD drive upgrades on machines running Lightroom and for each upgrade you see an improvement in catalogue performance. 5400 > 7200 is noticeable, moving to SSD can be quite dramatic.
If you only move the catalog to an SSD and nothing else, I don't believe you would see much difference. Especially if most of the time is spent in editing.
When I moved to SSD I felt a big difference in almost anything else than Lightroom in how snappy the machine became. Booting the machine, starting programs, browsing, copying large files. That feels dramatic.
One performance study is done here of common functions in Lightroom. At the end it is mentioned that scrolling etc. is considerably faster with an SSD but no meaurements of that.
So yes, I would recommend an SSD for a better overall performance and life extender of a machine, but I would argue that most of the benefit will come from the general use of the machine more than Lightroom itself.
-
If you only move the catalog to an SSD and nothing else, I don't believe you would see much difference. Especially if most of the time is spent in editing.
Certainly, just in the develop module, hard drive speed won't make any noticeable difference. CPU speed and a decent amount of ram are the key factors there.
Start working in the library and then you will see benefits from hard drive speed of the catalogue.
-
Certainly, just in the develop module, hard drive speed won't make any noticeable difference. CPU speed and a decent amount of ram are the key factors there.
Start working in the library and then you will see benefits from hard drive speed of the catalogue.
Well, that was part of the reason for my question, hardware configuration and use of Lightroom. The Library module will also be heavily dependent on screen size and thumbnail size. Also does the OP generate previews and which size.
The performance scrolling in the grid view will be very different if he scrolls on a small laptop screen or on a 30" screen with maybe 10x more thumbnails. So therefore my questions about his use of Lightroom.
Also is it older hardware where money spent might be better done on a newer system with much better cpu performance, maybe inadequate amount of RAM, etc. etc.
As I said I went from HD to SSD and Lightroom was a bit faster but not by much. The main benefit was elsewhere. Now, of course, I would never go back and it is not even an option any more as I use MacBook Pro 15" where only SSD's are available and I would never put my main catalog on an external drive.
-
The performance scrolling in the grid view will be very different if he scrolls on a small laptop screen or on a 30" screen with maybe 10x more thumbnails. So therefore my questions about his use of Lightroom.
It was a simple question and it has a simple answer; Yes, a faster drive will give benefits.
-
It was a simple question and it has a simple answer; Yes, a faster drive will give benefits.
The simple question was if a 7200 rpm drive would give benefits worth the upgrade from a 5400 rpm drive. My simple answer to this is that unless this gives other benefits (like more space) then for Lightroom alone I would advise not to do it.
-
The simple question was if a 7200 rpm drive would give benefits worth the upgrade from a 5400 rpm drive.
No it wasn't. Go back and read it again.
No issues of 'worth' or 'how much' just a simple question with a simple answer.
-
No it wasn't. Go back and read it again.
No issues of 'worth' or 'how much' just a simple question with a simple answer.
But the OP specifically asked "would I notice a difference..." (emphasis added by me).
The word "notice" is surely an important part of the question.
-
But the OP specifically asked "would I notice a difference..." (emphasis added by me).
The word "notice" is surely an important part of the question.
Answered in reply #4
-
No it wasn't. Go back and read it again.
No issues of 'worth' or 'how much' just a simple question with a simple answer.
Would he notice the difference is in my view the same as asking is it worth it to do the upgrade. My simple answer is: NO.
-
as drive data densities/sizes have increased, the read/write speed of some current 5400rpm drives is faster than some 7200 rpm drives of a few years ago. I don’t know how anyone would notice a difference between the seek time and write time of a 50k .xmp file between the two drives when it only happens when changing to a new image or when moving out of the develop module.
If we are talking a single drive system, neither is particularly fast, and a user may notice a very modest improve on some occasions when in the library module and viewing many images (small thumbnails). After a short time it will still probably feel just like it did before the drive change. So short version of this long answer as to whether the change to a 7200rpm drive would be noticeable ... No.
The library module will definitely feel snappier with a 3 or 4 drive raid 0 or a good SSD, the develop module needs CPU speed/power and RAM.
-
After a short time it will still probably feel just like it did before the drive change. So short version of this long answer as to whether the change to a 7200rpm drive would be noticeable ... No.
So an upgrade you might get used to isn't worth doing ? a curious notion.
-
So an upgrade you might get used to isn't worth doing ? a curious notion.
How can I answer that? I don’t know what the OP would feel is worth the investment. If extremely budget constrained, maybe not. And I don’t know what the workflow and demands are. Sort of back to Hans original point, without knowing the workflow and what the OP is doing it’s hard to really answer the question with a simple yes or no. I know you disagree and said you have seen the difference, but then I don’t know the specs of the drives you were upgrading to and your workflow.
If you just look at the access/read/write speed differences of the two drives, the 7200 drive really can only help if there is a lot of data going back and forth to cpu/RAM. For many users we’re talking saving a few hundred milliseconds every once in a while in a typical sessions. I spend very little time in the library module or moving between images, most time is in the development module working on the raw conversion.
But then some use Lightroom differently than others. If you are a wedding or other photographer who is ingesting 1000’s of image each day and constantly having to edit through those images in the library, then yes maybe the performance would be enough to make it worth the change.
But if this is more like the workflow of the OP, he would be much better off buying a second matching 5400 rpm drive and a reasonable JBOD USB 3 (assuming his computer supports USB 3) enclosure, and create a raid 0 with the operating system. this would be substantially faster than a single 7200 rpm drive.
-
Thanks for all the replies. I have decided to repurpose an SSD for the catalog, and I'll see if I notice a difference in real life.
However, I ran some disk benchmarks and was surprised to see the spread for the drive among a direct SATA6 connection (501/246 R/W MB/sec), in a USB 3 2.5" external drive case (307/249), and in a USB 3 external drive "toaster" (215/185). Of course, I have no idea if these are significant in practice. The internal 7200 rpm drive the catalog is on now benchmarks at 124/120 (it's on a SATA3 connection, whose throughput I understand is well above the drive's capability).
-
For "noticing" you all forgot to factor in the day and time of week. If you are strictly a weekend photographer and do all the photo work on the weekend and are not so keen on getting things done asap....fogettabout it. Spend the big bucks on a proper set of custom made camera straps.
:-)
-
When I got my current machine, the first ssd I'd had, I had software, catalogue and images on the ssd. Space meant I had to move the images somewhere, so before installing another ssd, I put them on the internal (mirrored) disks. I didn't do any measurements, but I didn't perceive any performance change, so that is where they have stayed.
Dave
-
Thanks for all the replies. I have decided to repurpose an SSD for the catalog, and I'll see if I notice a difference in real life.
However, I ran some disk benchmarks and was surprised to see the spread for the drive among a direct SATA6 connection (501/246 R/W MB/sec), in a USB 3 2.5" external drive case (307/249), and in a USB 3 external drive "toaster" (215/185). Of course, I have no idea if these are significant in practice. The internal 7200 rpm drive the catalog is on now benchmarks at 124/120 (it's on a SATA3 connection, whose throughput I understand is well above the drive's capability).
As I mentioned in earlier responses, I use a MacBook Pro 15" from 2014 and it has an internal drive that is 1TB SSD read and write speed is about 900MB/sec. I have the Lightroom catalog on the SSD as well as my most recent photo folders. The main reason is not performance, but convenience that I do not need to hook up an external drive to work on my photos. I can also go on a trip without copying anything. It's all there on the MBP.
To try out the performance on other external drives I copied the LR catalog and previews to my LaCie thunderbolt raid-1 drive and also to a USB-3 external drive. I opened the catalog from each of the devices and I did scrolling of thumbnails in grid view, went into loupe view and used the arrow key to fo from photo to photo and even holding the arrow key down. There was not a noticeable difference in performance. In each response was immediate and holding down the arrow key in loupe view in each case the window was flying through the pictures. So exactly what I suspected. Lightroom is cpu and memory bound and much less disc i/o bound.
There is situations where i/o speed comes in, e.g. when you open a file into Photoshop in 16 bit from Lightroom and maybe even a pano stitch consisting of mayber 10 or 20 pictures and the result maybe 1GB then there is a very clear difference having everything on an SSD. Doing this on the internal SSD of the MBP is very fast with read and write speeds close to a GB/sec. Also a 7200 rpm drive is as much faster than a 5400 rpm drive with the same interface (except USB2 or similar slow interface, of course).
On a Mac you can get an idea about how much i/o LR does by opening the Activity Monitor and click in disk. Under Windows look at the task manager and you also measure using the performance monitor. There is not a lot of i/o going on during normal LR use of going through the grid view, edit some photos etc. Exporting a lot of photos will of course read all the RAW or TIF files to be exported and write the resulting files, but here a lot of cpu time is spent in rendering the images, so again a mixed pixture.