LR4 speed totally unacceptable

[Steve Weldon]

I did listen to the message.  I also have discovered over on the adobe forum that there are literally hundreds of folks with much better computers than mine that are experiencing the same or very similar issues.

I have over 30 years experience in IT.  I have actually done all of the items you have mentioned.  Some of it happens automatically on a recurring basis.  Thank you for actually trying to be helpful.  The problems I am experiencing actually stop the program from working properly.  So in that case the program is broke not just slow.  I understand that I don't have a "flag ship" machine.  I keep my "working" catalog small usually less than 500 images.  I also don't expect it to POP.  I think i have realistic expectations I had hoped that someone might have found a issue I could deal with.  The way it looks right now the only group that will fix this coding issue is Adobe.

Have a nice day.

Mike

1.  Good, because he was accurate and when you cut through all the chaff the only way you're going to get 'good' LR performance is with a more modern machine and a x64 OS.  I know people don't want to hear that, and they want programs that run well on their old computers, but with 30 years in IT I'm sure you realize when you add functions and power to a program it almost always, all else being equal, comes at the cost of stiffer hardware requirements.

2.  Right, we've established in countless threads that LR4 in general is slower than we think it should be.  I'm sure Adobe is working on it.  But when you say "better than mine" you have to understand that doesn't mean much, you are on the lowest end of their requirements.  With LR4 you need a minimum of a 4 core CPU (no more than two generations old), 12gb+ of RAM, fast drives, an x64 OS, and to be set up properly for what imo is "acceptable performance.."  I build (and subsequently fix) imaging workstations for clients and LR is a popular program.. I would guess a full 70-80% of complaints with LR could be resolved using existing equipment.  A really powerful computer not properly set up, or with other issues, is pretty much at issue with LR as an older obsolete computer.

3.  It sounds like you've went over the common things to check.  Less common things to try would be to rotate your RAM modules, often a problem can hide in one and switching them can appear to solve a problem, or make it worse.  Either way, if anything changes them something is up.  Just re-seating the RAM modules can make a big difference.  You've monitoring the temperature of your CPU under load?  On older systems the heatsink compound can get old and dried up and really lose it's ability to transfer heat.  Re-seating your video card would be something else I'd try.  Basically I'd disassemble, clean, and inspect the entire system.  It's old enough to be beneficial regardless.

4.  I wouldn't assume it's the program.. too many people are running it without stoppages, though I admit not understanding what you're claiming it does.  "stopping it from working properly" is about as vague as it gets.  The better you articulate your issues the more helpful others can be.

5.  I haven't seen any evidence LR is "broke."  Bloated yes.  Slow yes.  I could write a list of things which could benefit LR.  But I've personally installed it on everything from the newest dual xeon systems to 5-6 year old x32 bit laptops and everyone "works."  They just have different levels of performance.  You might want to consider un-installing LR completely, rebooting, cleaning out all LR registry entries.. and then re-installing.   If that fails, create a separate partition with another OS build and install only LR.. see how it runs.  It wouldn't be the first time an old Windows install, or even a defective Windows install.. caused issues with the type of program that uses so many resources.

Good luck solving your issues.

[Rhossydd]

We get thread after thread after thread with people going over the same issues/thoughts.  Hint:  There is a search feature on the forums.   Or, just read down  a page or two and you'll pick out 3-4 other threads talking about LR's performance.

The implication here is that you think that just because others have complained about this issue no one else should add to it. It's a nice idea, but wrong.
If people see someone else has reported a problem and don't people add any more experiences it can seem like an isolated problem. All software has bugs, some can be very minor and obscure that effect very few, some can be terrible for a few suffering from them, but are so esoteric and system specific they're not practical to fix, then there are the serious problems that effect very many users and need to be resolved. These big problems only get the attention they deserve if everyone that is afflicted complains and the scale of the problem is fully understood.
The responsiveness of LR4's develop module is one of the later. It simply isn't an acceptable answer to say you need a SOTA system to be able to use it. Adobe released LR4 when this issue had been widely reported from the beta, maybe they didn't believe the reports, but nothing much changed in 4 from 4b. 4.1rc was better which suggests it can be fixed, but 4.2rc is worse than 4.1, but better than 4(b). Process 2012 works fine in ACR, so this is an LR issue.

I'd be more impressed with Adobe if they'd withheld the release of 4 until they'd resolved the usability issues rather than rushing it to market in bad shape.

[dreed]

2.  Right, we've established in countless threads that LR4 in general is slower than we think it should be.  I'm sure Adobe is working on it.  But when you say "better than mine" you have to understand that doesn't mean much, you are on the lowest end of their requirements.  With LR4 you need a minimum of a 4 core CPU (no more than two generations old), 12gb+ of RAM, fast drives, an x64 OS, and to be set up properly for what imo is "acceptable performance.."  I build (and subsequently fix) imaging workstations for clients and LR is a popular program.. I would guess a full 70-80% of complaints with LR could be resolved using existing equipment.  A really powerful computer not properly set up, or with other issues, is pretty much at issue with LR as an older obsolete computer.

There's a couple of myths here:
1) RAM. 4GB is the minimum, not 12GB.
2) Hard drive speed is not all that relevant. Look at any SSD test where the speed of the SSD makes almost no difference to the time tasks take in LR.

As has been previously established, the key requirement for good LR performance is a good CPU. So if you have the option of spending $200 more on RAM or CPU or disk space, spend it on CPU. If/when LR is able to offload some tasks to the GPU then maybe the GPU will also matter but as far as I'm aware, the architecture of the application does not currently support that.

[Steve Weldon]

The implication here is that you think that just because others have complained about this issue no one else should add to it. It's a nice idea, but wrong.
If people see someone else has reported a problem and don't people add any more experiences it can seem like an isolated problem. All software has bugs, some can be very minor and obscure that effect very few, some can be terrible for a few suffering from them, but are so esoteric and system specific they're not practical to fix, then there are the serious problems that effect very many users and need to be resolved. These big problems only get the attention they deserve if everyone that is afflicted complains and the scale of the problem is fully understood.
The responsiveness of LR4's develop module is one of the later. It simply isn't an acceptable answer to say you need a SOTA system to be able to use it. Adobe released LR4 when this issue had been widely reported from the beta, maybe they didn't believe the reports, but nothing much changed in 4 from 4b. 4.1rc was better which suggests it can be fixed, but 4.2rc is worse than 4.1, but better than 4(b). Process 2012 works fine in ACR, so this is an LR issue.

I'd be more impressed with Adobe if they'd withheld the release of 4 until they'd resolved the usability issues rather than rushing it to market in bad shape.

1.  No.  My implication is to read the existing information/threads and maybe add to them if you feel the need.  If you think that more threads will prompt Adobe to somehow speed up their process I can't agree.  How many duplicate threads saying the same thing do you think it will take to prompt Adobe to move faster?  I'll bet if everyone who has complained in these threads is 100% honest we'll find relatively few have contacted Adobe directly and tried to work through their issues.  If we want Adobe to listen to use then we need to make it easy for them to understand what the problems are, what system and circumstances are experiencing the problems, and if possible give them a chance to help you solve it.  It will have much greater effect if we call Adobe and spend some time with their tech support and their tech support people are providing feedback.  I'm not saying we should intentionally flood or overwhelm them, but that is something they'd notice.   But threads like this are practically worthless.  The OP starts the thread saying his machine is unacceptably slow, tells us his system is on the lower end of the minimum requirements, and later only gives us equally vague symptoms.  Even if Adobe is listening what does it tell them?

2.  And yes, I think it is acceptable to say you need certain minimum requirements and I think this is where Adobe is letting us down the most.  They should be very candid and upfront telling us what to expect with a certain level of system.  If the minimum requirements require a SOTA system for the best performance.. then say so.  Actually they have.. but not nearly strong enough imo.  It would cut into their sales and give the competition an edge.  Wouldn't everyone prefer it if Adobe said something like "for fast smooth performance of all functions of Lightroom you need a SOTA system" and "if you're barely meeting the minimum requirements expect slow performance, delays in rendering, and extended export times?"    So yes, it's acceptable to tell us we need whatever is required.  But just say it, stop being so vague because you'll lose sales.

[Steve Weldon]

There's a couple of myths here:
1) RAM. 4GB is the minimum, not 12GB.
2) Hard drive speed is not all that relevant. Look at any SSD test where the speed of the SSD makes almost no difference to the time tasks take in LR.

As has been previously established, the key requirement for good LR performance is a good CPU. So if you have the option of spending $200 more on RAM or CPU or disk space, spend it on CPU. If/when LR is able to offload some tasks to the GPU then maybe the GPU will also matter but as far as I'm aware, the architecture of the application does not currently support that.

Gosh.. I couldn't disagree more.  With most everything you said.  Sorry, but I build systems for clients and I know what works and what doesn't.  Yes, CPU performance is important.  But so is RAM and your RAM amount should be matched/balanced to the load you expect your CPU to perform at.  Trying to separate these is folly.

And yes, drive speed is very relevant.  So is properly interpreting test results you read on the internet.  Also important is understanding what functions in LR will benefit from increased drive speeds.  Lightroom has grown into a complex piece of software which performs many functions, it helps to understand which hardware components are being tasked for which functions, and to understand your own personal workflow and which functions are the most important to this workflow.  Unfortunately, because it is complex, most don't have a good grasp on these areas.

And the GPU makes a big difference. Not as much as it could if it was directly tasked as you mentioned, but enough to eliminate the rendering delays to multiple higher resolution monitors many are complaining about.  If it were tasked it would cost them more in time and money to directly support certain video cards, but then it would save the user money by being able to buy a less expensive but supported GPU vs. just buying the most powerful GPU they can afford. 

I've spent many hours trying different configurations, CPU's, RAM, drives, GPU's.. all the latest equipment, and since I've been doing this for a long time.. also all the old equipment (when it was the latest equipment).  Identifying the bottleneck is key, and then balancing the system to eliminate that bottleneck.  It won't do 'much' good to add more RAM when the bottleneck is a your CPU, or to add a CPU if the bottleneck is a really slow drive..   I can't count the number of systems I've checked for someone complaining of poor performance only to find a major bottleneck. 

Adobe is letting us down, but not where most people think.  This is a serious piece of software many use professionally.  We shouldn't be dependent on the reviews of others to find which componentry works best for certain functions within LR.  Lightroom's "minimum requirements" are misleading and I think this is intentional.  At a minimum they should have an area showing basic system levels with the resulting times for specific operations.  Benchmarks.

And an area where they talk about how a specific component affects specific operations/functions while providing examples using specific pieces of hardware.  They can't test it all, but properly done they could test small subsets of components and provide the benchmarks and we could use those as references.   For instance, how would a workstation GPU benefit LR vs. a gaming GPU?  Or a 4 core vs. 6?  or a cache on a dirt slow 4200rpm laptop drive that your system and data files are already on (laptop) vs. a dedicated SSD?  Or basic intel 4000 graphics vs. a mid-level 6800 series GPU?  When does more RAM start to greatly improve localized editing?  Adobe apparently wants the casual user to think LR works just dandy on any machine.  The benefit?  Increased sales. 

There's a lot Adobe could do.. and I don't know why they're not.  My guess would be because no one in the industry is doing this.. so if they said you needed X-system to get decent performance then they'd just go to the competition and complain about their software.  From a business standpoint a complaining but paying customer, is far preferable to no customer at all.. at least they think so.

[hjulenissen]

Adobe is letting us down, but not where most people think.  This is a serious piece of software many use professionally.  We shouldn't be dependent on the reviews of others to find which componentry works best for certain functions within LR.  Lightroom's "minimum requirements" are misleading and I think this is intentional.  At a minimum they should have an area showing basic system levels with the resulting times for specific operations.  Benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/25
Adobe photoshop CS4 "retouch artist" may not be perfectly relevant, but at least it is an image editor by the same company, and anandtech have performed it on nearly every cpu available.

I think that part of the reason why Adobe set the minimum specs so low is that a large amount of users will probably use Lightroom with an older DSLR or m4/3 camera producing 8MP or 12MP files, have 1000 or so files in their database, and use the development features sparingly. Without having tested, I am guessing that you can get by with modest system specs in such a case.

I think that LR4 compared to LR3 behaves in such a way that the performance issues reported likely are the results of an oversight, not because they consciously have chosen image processing algorithms that need to be many times more expensive. Surely, Adobe would never want to irritate so many users with recent systems knowingly (12GB, i7 2600, SSD, w7-64). Again, this points to that these performance issues simply slipped under the radar during testing. At some point, the snowball had rolled too far, and they "had to" release the product, aiming to fix the performance issues in a dot-release.

-h

[Scott O.]

You have a crappy computer.  Big shock, current programs take it past it's max, whoa.

Upgrade.

It may or may not be due to the computer. Reports on this sort of performance are all over the place regarding equipment. I haven't seen any pattern. My system works fine, others do not. It is a bit too simple to blame what is probably a complex issue on a "crappy computer".

[Phil Indeblanc]

Have you tried using ACR/Photoshop.? It does most things as LR, but not in Batch, and certainly no Library, which IS THE BEST THING ABOUT IT. LR is rather horrible as a DAM/Image manager, as it only supports a handful of image formats. It doesn't even support newer Photoshop formats, only compatible mode.  Maybe since ACR is able to separate itself from the DAM portion it is SOOo fast and easy to work with.  You can actually still load a group of images and do batch. Just not as easy as LR.

I honestly think Adobe needs to BOOST ACR without the DAM(Digi Asset Manager) part and make better use of the GUI of ACR, ...LR, no Library, let us choose a DAM that actually handles image formats. Call it ACR Pro for all I care...Charge me $29-49, etc more for all I care...I just hate one program that does an awesome job of developing, yet soooo limited on managing.

Where did the idea of the 2 LARGE RESOURCE HUNGRY TASK MERGE?!!!  A DAM is a DAM, a Developer is just that, a DEVLOPER!  NO wonder we have resource issues!

Simply dress up ACR a bit, and let the USERS make the CHOICE of DAM

LR is NOT a DAM, period. As far as I can tell it only sees RAW, TIF, JPEG, and Older PSD files.  Hello?, 4 formats? this is far from being a DAM. Let the DAM's do their job , and the Dev's do theirs.
Idea of it in one interface is great on paper, and marketing slickness....Surely there are issues.

[dreed]

Gosh.. I couldn't disagree more.  With most everything you said.  Sorry, but I build systems for clients and I know what works and what doesn't.  Yes, CPU performance is important.  But so is RAM and your RAM amount should be matched/balanced to the load you expect your CPU to perform at.

Let me know if/when you observe LR using more than 2GB of RAM itself and under what conditions. 4GB is going to be the minimum but anything over 8 is just overkill at present. Most likely all of that extra RAM will just get used for disk caching by Windows, not directly by LR.

And yes, drive speed is very relevant.  So is properly interpreting test results you read on the internet.  Also important is understanding what functions in LR will benefit from increased drive speeds.

Why don't you run some benchmarks that show how LR can benefit from using a fast disk (such as an SSD) vs a slow disk (such as a traditional hard drive) and document it for us? It would be very interesting to have a counterpoint to the reviews that are saying there is little benefit from faster (SSD) hard drives.

There's a lot Adobe could do.. and I don't know why they're not.  My guess would be because no one in the industry is doing this..

Look on the outside of any packaged game that is marketed at Windows. Last time I looked, they listed "minimum system requirements" and in some instances even document performance levels against various specifications. Of course package labelling may have changed since I last looked.

[Phil Indeblanc]

There is minimum AND there is often RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDED should give an idea. Some sneaky MFG's avoid this.

MINIMUM is OSCAR MYERS

[Derry]

I am running LR4 and was on an HP tower, 32 bit, 3 GB ram, Quad processor,, would say it was fair but could certainly be helped,, NX2 was slow at times,,

since I have an 800E on order and my tower is three years aged I figured I would go for a new tower,, have a good 24" HD monitor,,

todays machine is 64 bit, has i7 3770 processor with 16 GB ram,, lightroom or NX2 opens in a flash and could not believe how quick it is,, even the wife had to say WOW when I was running through some old photos as they were on the screen in a flash,, even the internet is far quicker,, our home has a 30+ MB download and 4.5 MB upload,, if the remote site is fast it is on the screen when removing my finger from the key,, the wife's Ipad is also almost instant,,

the new machine does not have all the junk the mfgs usually load on them, just the basics needed to operate,,

I'm loving it,,

Derry

[Steve Weldon]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/25
Adobe photoshop CS4 "retouch artist" may not be perfectly relevant, but at least it is an image editor by the same company, and anandtech have performed it on nearly every cpu available.

I think that part of the reason why Adobe set the minimum specs so low is that a large amount of users will probably use Lightroom with an older DSLR or m4/3 camera producing 8MP or 12MP files, have 1000 or so files in their database, and use the development features sparingly. Without having tested, I am guessing that you can get by with modest system specs in such a case.

I think that LR4 compared to LR3 behaves in such a way that the performance issues reported likely are the results of an oversight, not because they consciously have chosen image processing algorithms that need to be many times more expensive. Surely, Adobe would never want to irritate so many users with recent systems knowingly (12GB, i7 2600, SSD, w7-64). Again, this points to that these performance issues simply slipped under the radar during testing. At some point, the snowball had rolled too far, and they "had to" release the product, aiming to fix the performance issues in a dot-release.

-h

Certainly a valid take on the situation.  The "why" is something we can all have opinions about, but only Adobe knows.  I do think it's a two part decision though.  Perhaps it was an oversight/mistake/error that it requires so much hardware, but it was a conscience and targeted decision to keep the same minimum requirements after knowing the requirements.  And i think this is purely about sales.

[Steve Weldon]

It may or may not be due to the computer. Reports on this sort of performance are all over the place regarding equipment. I haven't seen any pattern. My system works fine, others do not. It is a bit too simple to blame what is probably a complex issue on a "crappy computer".

True.  It could be many things causing the OP's specific symptoms which he stated in a very vague way at best.  And we have to remember that everyones expectations/evaluation of how fast a system feels depends on their individual work flow and frame of reference in regards to other systems.  But we do know a computer with the stated specs will be a poor performer in general when used with LR4, so it's a reasonable place to start.

[Phil Indeblanc]

Win7, 64bit, Intel i7 Quad core 860 @ 3.2GHz, 16gb ram, 1gb video ram GTX-470(I think?), SSD OS, SSD Scratch, and OS PageFile, files on NAS 1K-LAN. 2 30" 2560x1600 screens.  7.8 performance score.
(Usually have ACDSee Pro, or Photoshop or other program running. But 2 or 3 at a time. No virus apps like most people need(often offline workstation).

The above I would consider very well suited for Image editing to the point of more than recommended. My files are usually 22-25mpixel cameras. Some get large in PSD.

My LR expereince is sluggish in making adjustments and seeing them happen. The sliders are a bit "jumpy" in response. Redraw is also a bit sluggish.

If any slower, It wouldn't work.....Maybe that's what the OP means by "Broken".  

The fact that some of us spend more time than we would like, searching these forums for a sollution should be enough for something to be done.
It could be as simple as stating the facts of expectation or an adjustment. with the way it behaves.

When I had issues with Adobe not able to process TIF PhaseOne files made out of 3.78, and months passed with no correction, and they emailed a resolved statment and that was it. Initially they asked for files and such, but after some time, it was as if it was resolved.  LR4, even today, cannot see past the Preview TIF on RAW files of Phase One.

I mention this past experience as my take on what might be done if enough people don't express their problems.

[Steve Weldon]

Let me know if/when you observe LR using more than 2GB of RAM itself and under what conditions. 4GB is going to be the minimum but anything over 8 is just overkill at present. Most likely all of that extra RAM will just get used for disk caching by Windows, not directly by LR.

Why don't you run some benchmarks that show how LR can benefit from using a fast disk (such as an SSD) vs a slow disk (such as a traditional hard drive) and document it for us? It would be very interesting to have a counterpoint to the reviews that are saying there is little benefit from faster (SSD) hard drives.

Look on the outside of any packaged game that is marketed at Windows. Last time I looked, they listed "minimum system requirements" and in some instances even document performance levels against various specifications. Of course package labelling may have changed since I last looked.

1.  I use over 2gb of RAM in LR all the time.   When?  When building previews, outputting files, when using more than 3-4 localized editing points, when syncing files or applying develop pastes to multiple files, when running searches in my catalog based on keywords or exfil, building a reasonable size web gallery, and more.  You have to know your work flow and when it can benefit from the RAM, not everyone had the same work flow and won't realize the same benefits.  Also keep in mind that Win7's memory manager might not let you use more RAM in LR if it doesn't think you have enough in other areas, or in other words to see the RAM being used you need to be on a system which can take advantage of the additional RAM.

And let's remember most people have more than LR going at one time.  I personally have FF with 8-9 tabs open Outlook, CS5 Photoshop and Dreamweaver, Lightroom, various plug-ins, and more going.   Most of us have something other than LR open because it's a reasonable way to use a computer.  RAM benefits all of this.

2.  Anything over 8gb being overkill depends entirely on your personal work flow.  Sure, for someone with only LR open and who processes one image at a time, doesn't run batch or search operations, doesn't want the benefit from a good sized cache, etc, etc.. it would be overkill.   Know your work flow.

3.  A system is a system.  More RAM being used as a cache or pagefile or RAMdisk or any way that benefits the system, benefits LR.  This is where you either need to be knowledgeable enough about computers in general and your software to realize the benefits, or pay someone who is to do the setup for you.  I have many clients who don't want to be bothered with such things, they just want to use a system and not be hampered by bottlenecks.  Most are creative professionals and I do my best to support them.  More RAM properly deployed is just one of the ways I do this.

4.  I provided a counterpoint in the relevant thread.  I took the time to point out areas the reviewers test failed to address and what part of the LR work flow benefits from faster drives.  I know you participated in this thread, but if you weren't convinced then I don't have anything new to add other than to try and get your hands on some fast SSD's and try it yourself.

5.  I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your comment about games.  We were addressing LR.   Please expand on this a bit if you wouldn't mind.

[Steve Weldon]

Win7, 64bit, Intel i7 Quad core 860 @ 3.2GHz, 16gb ram, 1gb video ram GTX-470(I think?), SSD OS, SSD Scratch, and OS PageFile, files on NAS 1K-LAN. 2 30" 2560x1600 screens.

The above I would consider very well suited for Image editing to the point of more than recommended. My files are usually 22-25mpixel cameras. Some get large in PSD.

My LR expereince is sluggish in making adjustments and seeing them happen. The sliders are a bit "jumpy" in response. Redraw is also a bit sluggish.

If any slower, It wouldn't work.....Maybe that's what the OP means by "Broken".  

The fact that some of us spend more time than we would like, searching these forums for a sollution should be enough for something to be done.
It could be as simple as stating the facts of expectation or an adjustment. with the way it behaves.

When I had issues with Adobe not able to process TIF PhaseOne files made out of 3.78, and months passed with no correction, and they emailed a resolved statment and that was it. Initially they asked for files and such, but after some time, it was as if it was resolved.  LR4, even today, cannot see past the Preview TIF on RAW files of Phase One.

I mention this past experience as my take on what might be done if enough people don't express their problems.

1.  Your work files are on a NAS?  I'd use a fast NAS for archives but not current work files.  With the system you describe I'd guess this is a bottleneck for at least some of your work flow.  If you also have your catalog/library and previews on the NAS it would affect a lot more of your work flow.

2.  It's hard to know what the OP meant from his description.. but his system is significantly less powerful than yours so I'd doubt you're experiencing the same level of whatever his issues are.

3.  Please don't get me wrong on this, I'm not saying we shouldn't voice our issues with LR.  I'm just saying that when we do, it should be done in the most effective way possible or we shouldn't expect it to matter much.  It appears from above that you contacted Adobe and worked with them.. this imo is the best way to effect change and get their attention.  And as you mentioned, being able to accurately articulate the issues you're having plays a huge part in the process.  But simply starting more threads with vague complaints imo does nothing to help.

[Phil Indeblanc]

The NAS speed fluxes between 60-80MB per second on Intel servers.
The catalog as LR likes it and doesn't allow Network for catalogs are on my SSD drives on the OS.

I see your point, and not sure if posting them doesn't help. It surely can hurt them, and thats not the intention or a good thing...
I think most people put it up so they see the feedback and scrabble to fix it.  I find it odd, that there are no Support staff folks that try and intervene and try solving problems from reputable and well managed forums such as this?!

Look at Amazon, or NewEgg...it has pushed manufacturers to take care of those issues right away. They jump in and ask to contact and resolve!

One cannot ignore the impact on Adobe from the forum threads here on LL. After all, most users here are in the business or eductors, new camera owners, with new businesses, all walks really.

Take Doug for instance, he in my opinion has done GREAT work for Phase One, and has helped many users continue with PhaseOne.

[fegari]

Hello All,

I think this is my first post! been quietly reading and enjoying this forum for months but thought to contribute to this thread that interests me particularly. So much that I even posted on Adobes's review board...first time I ever do so but felt it was necessary.

If I may (and hope I'm not getting in trouble for this) I'm copying the LR4 review I posted in Adobe's;

"LR 4 & RC2: what's going on performance-wise?
fegari Posted:01-May-2012
First I want to say that Lightroom is a fantastic piece of software and I can only paise the general improvements in LR4 regarding processing capabilities. However I've been experiencing some glitches that are turning it into an unbereable experience. (this started with LR4 Beta, then 4.1, RC1 & RC2)
I have a very nice PC and even re-installed everyting (OS, Apps etc) from scratch again as I thought it was me but no, the issues persist and maybe even worse with RC2:
- 1:1 batch previews: the first ones take a couple of SECONDS (very nice) but as it goes on it takes forever! Right now I'm still generating previews for a task I launched 16 hours ago (2000 images)! Something's going on here, each preview takes more than the previous one. I must clarify that my processor is only used to 15% and Ram keeps creeping up. Rigt now 8GB / 16GB used by Lightrrom. All other apps run quite fast.
- Noise Reduction: A good as it is, as soon as I touch it the whole app becomes slow, refreshings take almost 20 secs and have to wait for the spiining wheel...I can even see the menus re-drawing in real time. Click somewhere else and it will almost always hang. Same as before, CPU used only to 15% and more than enough available RAM to spare.
Genrally speaking from a fresh start the app runs OK most of the time, but fiddle around with some pictures, going back from Library to Develop, doing some basic manipulation with the images and 20mins later I have to re-start, it becomes unusable.
Finally, and sorry for the long rant, I've tried with big & small catalogs both running from very fast HDDs and even from an SSD and the issue is the same. Clearly not my PC, nor CPU (severely unused) nor RAM. SOmetimes even when lauching the APP it starts using 20% CPU without me doing even the first mouse click.
Hoping Adobe is already tackling them for the next release, to be honest I feel I'm still using a bugged Beta and it is a pitty for such a great App. Without a doubt LR3 was much faster.
My PC: SSD for Boot, 2x2 HHDs WD caviar Black of 2TB each, i7 2600K & 16GB RAM. Windows7 and 27 inch Apple cinema screen.
Regards"

I've dissasembled and re-installed the PC, no other app in my PC behaves like this (all other are super fast) and more importantly it worsens with time so I don't share at all this comes from "not seated modules, bad hardware etc". I think it is a clear concern on LR4 and if you take the time to look at Adobe's forum, the vast majority of reviews express the same. Bad performance even with top of the line PC/Macs. It drives me nuts and the only half-cure to the problem, which is not acceptable in the long run, begun when I STOPPED USING NOISE REDUCTION / Lens corrections at all. Did not solve all issues (still slows downs with use) but at least makes it bearable to work with because I was really going crazy to have to re-start the app after every photo re-touch or watching menus re-draw in front of my eyes for 20 secs.

My 2c.

rgds

PS: In case this comes back, I've forgot to mention that my GPU is a Radeon 6950 2GB...more than enough.

[Steve Weldon]

The NAS speed fluxes between 60-80MB per second on Intel servers.
The catalog as LR likes it and doesn't allow Network for catalogs are on my SSD drives on the OS.

I see your point, and not sure if posting them doesn't help. It surely can hurt them, and thats not the intention or a good thing...
I think most people put it up so they see the feedback and scrabble to fix it.  I find it odd, that there are no Support staff folks that try and intervene and try solving problems from reputable and well managed forums such as this?!
e
Look at Amazon, or NewEgg...it has pushed manufacturers to take care of those issues right away. They jump in and ask to contact and resolve!

One cannot ignore the impact on Adobe from the forum threads here on LL. After all, most users here are in the business or eductors, new camera owners, with new businesses, all walks really.

Take Doug for instance, he in my opinion has done GREAT work for Phase One, and has helped many users continue with PhaseOne.

1.  60-80mbps is a really nice speed for an NAS but is roughly the speed of a 7200rpm laptop drive.. if you read/write a lot of files at once this could hurt you.  The catalogs and previews on a fast SSD is ideal imo.. it should make going through your catalogs rip.  At least it has on the systems I've set up that way.  For large catalogs and previews I like using a hybrid SSD setup because the hybrid software generally favors the way we use catalogs and the extra space over a straight SSD is nice. 

2.  I think we can all agree we'd like to see Adobe doing more.  But it's just my opinion that threads such as these where the problem isn't well articulated and instead is vague and more of a venting isn't going to do much good.  And you're right, the forums here are probably more credible than most and Adobe does watch here.  All the more reason to well manage the threads and more or less QC the quality of postings.

[Steve Weldon]

Hello All,

I think this is my first post! been quietly reading and enjoying this forum for months but thought to contribute to this thread that interests me particularly

Great post.  With your system you should certainly be seeing more than acceptable performance.  I've built quite a few to these specs and each has performed to a high level. 

Your symptoms concerning CPU usage when building previews and and that it takes longer and longer.. This to me is pointing to a cache or catalog issue.  When you rebuilt your system did you rebuild your catalog from scratch?  One of the checks I do on new machines is to take a fast 2tb black with approx 1.5tb of 5d2/1ds2/1ds3 raw files in a tiered folder structure, and import the entire drive into LR and build 1:1 previews.  I use this in addition to Prime95 to burn in new systems and also to check that LR is working as it should for my clients.  When I do this the CPU usage is up at 80-90% and RAM usage if nothing else is running goes to about 50% of what's available.  It imports these images, builds the catalog and previews, in a matter of hours.

Sometimes.. I've seen a converted catalog, say a V2-V3 conversion, or a V3-V4.. develop issues during the conversion.  Sometimes the optimize catalog feature fixes this, but usually not. 

You might want to try deleting your pref files (or renaming them so you can bring them back later), and building an additional catalog.. and see how your CPU/RAM usage goes.. and if you notice increased performance.  As you say, your system has all the power it needs and even your video card should be sufficient for everything but 2nd monitor lag-free redraws.. with that card I'd expect there to be a .5 sec lag on the second monitor from the time you move a develop slider until you see the change on the second monitor.  The first monitor should change instantly.  I can tell you I've built and installed at least five systems with your specs and LR4 versions in just the last three weeks and they've all worked great.

LR has always had issues converting catalogs since the V1-V2 roll out.. hard to tell if more of these issues were due to LR having issues or the user doing something during the conversion that caused a glitch.. either way Adobe could make the process more robust..