Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Processor efficiency  (Read 3557 times)

mdijb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • mdiimaging.com
Processor efficiency
« on: June 14, 2008, 08:37:42 pm »

I have been reading articles and posts on forums regarding making Photoshop more efficient and faster by using a dedicated external drive for scratch disk.  These have been written by Ctein primarily and others.  I have been monitoring the effieciency of my machine buy following the Scratch disk use and efficiency in the Info pallete in Photoshop.  90% of the time my efficiency is 100% and only uses the scratch disk intermittently.

With this amount of usage, does it make sense to invest in more hardware??  Will such a move give me more speed or just waste money.  Even though the efficiency indication are high, some of my processing takes time and I am impatient.

This is directed at those of you who understand a lot more about computer functioning than I.

MDIJB
Logged
mdiimaging.com

The Hardcard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Processor efficiency
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2008, 12:18:33 am »

Poor efficiency is when Photoshop has to stop CPU calcualtions and wait for data to be moved to the proper place. With 100 percent efficiency, you aren't going to gain much speed by getting an external drive.

There are other advantages to using another hard drive, be it external or not, increased reliability from having important information separated and less wear and tear per drive. Of course, overall, you are working two drives at the same time, more energy.

If you are waiting too long for results because you have an older CPU, you are better off saving for a newer CPU. If you have a newer CPU, you should save while you wait for technology to advance.
Logged

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
Processor efficiency
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2008, 01:18:00 am »

Quote
I have been reading articles and posts on forums regarding making Photoshop more efficient and faster by using a dedicated external drive for scratch disk.  These have been written by Ctein primarily and others.  I have been monitoring the effieciency of my machine buy following the Scratch disk use and efficiency in the Info pallete in Photoshop.  90% of the time my efficiency is 100% and only uses the scratch disk intermittently.

With this amount of usage, does it make sense to invest in more hardware??  Will such a move give me more speed or just waste money.  Even though the efficiency indication are high, some of my processing takes time and I am impatient.

This is directed at those of you who understand a lot more about computer functioning than I.

MDIJB
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, if you are on a desktop, a dedicated internal drive for scratch would be the best bet. And as they are rather cheap these days it couldn't hurt. You could always transfer it to the new machine when the time comes.

If on a laptop, there are those times that you have indicated where it would still be of benefit to have an external scratch. I run one whenever using PS.
Logged

01af

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
Processor efficiency
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2008, 09:35:05 am »

Having Photoshop's scratch file on a separate hard disk sure is a good idea. 'Separate' here means, not on the same physical disk where the operating system's page file resides (using different logical partitions on the same physical disk doesn't help). It does not necessarily mean, external.

However, before investing in another hard disk, consider upgrading your RAM. That's the most effective single factor for speeding up Photoshop. And RAM is cheap these days. But hard disks are cheap, too ... and having another is useful not only for speed reasons but also for data safety reasons. You should never store important data on one single hard disk only! Of course you should have 2nd- or 3rd-level back-ups that get stored outside the computer (if not outside the house) ... but for a quick first-level back-up, a second internal hard disk is handy.

It's a bad idea, however, to use an external hard disk for Photoshop's scratch file because it'll be waay too slow ... well, except it's an eSATA disk. But USB and FireWire are slooow. External USB hard disks are great for back-up purposes but not for temporary working files.

By the way, Photoshop will make extensive use of the scratch file even when the Efficiency indicator is at or near 100 %. For example, all the history states go straight into the scratch file and will get recovered from there if needed.

-- Olaf
Logged

mdijb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • mdiimaging.com
Processor efficiency
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2008, 07:45:13 pm »

I am using a Macbook Pro with 4GB of ram, the maximum.

the Article by Ctein describes using an external drive with an eSATA connection

Here is a link to the article.

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html

 Another version of this was just published in the latest issue of PHOTO Technique.

Do you think it would be worth the cost?

MDIJB
Logged
mdiimaging.com

theophilus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
Processor efficiency
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2008, 12:14:45 pm »

If you are going to use an external drive make sure you get one with a fan and that has a reputation of keeping the drive cool.  Check reviews at newegg.com.  Most external enclosures are just made to occasionally take a data dump, it's not meant for something like a scratch disk.  If you constantly run it hot you will shorten the life of the drive.  Also if Photoshop is using it a lot make sure it is in a really stable spot, you will run a greater risk of a head crash with an external drive.

The key is to make a partition that is at the beginning of the drive so that the seek times are the lowest for the Photoshop scratch disk.

Here is how my desktop is set up (I know you have a MAC but this could help)

Physical disk #1:
C: - windows - 30 GB
E: - programs (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc) - 40 GB
F: - Windows scratch disk - 4 GB (it need not be higher than double your RAM size)

Physical disk #2
G: - music
H: - Lightroom library, misc photography stuff

Physical disk #3
I: - all photos

Physical disk #4
J: - Photoshop Scratch disk (30 GB - you may need more if you make huge panos)
K: - random files/backup - little used

plus 2 external drives just used for backup

------

I'm guessing for a MAC with two drives you could do:

Physical Drive #1:
MAC OS + programs

Physical Drive #2
Partition #1 - Photoshop scratch disk
Partition #2 - Photos

The key is that the Photoshop scratch disk is the first partition that you make on that new drive.

-----------

If you are using Lightroom as well as Photoshop then make sure that your Lightroom Library is on a different physical disk than the actual photo files.
Logged

Philmar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
  • Office drone by day - Photoenthusiast on weekends
    • https://www.flickr.com/photos/phil_marion/albums
Processor efficiency
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2008, 11:30:49 am »

Quote
Physical disk #1:
C: - windows - 30 GB
E: - programs (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc) - 40 GB
F: - Windows scratch disk - 4 GB (it need not be higher than double your RAM size)

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I too have my programs, OS and scratch drive on 1 HD, my data files on a second and a 3rd drive serving as the PS scratch disk.
I haven't partitioned my drive with the OS, app and windows scratch. Would that be advisable, or do I simply have to defrag more frequently?

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Processor efficiency
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2008, 11:10:01 pm »

All advice from Adobe and Microsoft which I've read recommends putting the Photoshop scratch disk on a separate internal hard drive from the drive which houses the O/S and Photoshop applications. This maximizes processing speed when not all can be accommodated in RAM.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: [1]   Go Up