Partitioned HD--Lightroom performance??

Status
Not open for further replies.

ernie

Active Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
398
Location
Little Rock, Arkansas
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
A bit of history-I have never used the DAM functions of LR but I am going to start now. It is a brand new year, I have a new PC, and I am going to implement a new filing system using year/each month/day with short description. And then keyword it all. Ambitious, heh?
This new pc has a 75'g drive. I have read that if you partition your hd and keep the OS and programs together in a smaller partition you can get better performance. I plan to make the c drive about 25'g and then partition the rest just to hold images. Of course they will be backed up on externals. Will this keep LR running at it's best/easiest, or will it make any difference?
Oh, while I'm at it, another question. I plan just to import my mess of image folders into LR all in one swell foop. Then create collections by dates, then move the files into the appropriate new monthly folders I will have already created. Is this a good way to go about re-doing my system? Other ideas/suggestions? Thanks, Ernie
 
Sounds like a good New Year's resolution. Worthwhile and achievable.

Partitioning will probably help a little, because while doing all those sequential reads and writes for image data, the head won't have to move as far if it can stay in the data partition. Whether this makes a measurable difference is another question altogether...

As for reorganizing, if you're going to import, why not just select "organize by date" in the Import dialog and let LR sort it all out for you?
 
Just as an aside, I've never found the 'one swell foop' theory to work well with large data chunks. Well, that's not exactly true, but I tend to try this stuff in smaller bites for easier trouble-shooting / recovery in the event things (even non-Lr issues) go wrong. Nothing like sitting there watching a progress bar, wondering "Hmmm, is that thing stuck, how long is this supposed to take?"

Just my two cents worth.....
 
Mark, I didn't know that was there. Thanks
Brad, good point. I hate watching those bars too.
 
Mark, I didn't find that option. I'm importing from disc, does that make a difference?
Also another question. Can I make an import develop preset before I actually import something. I did have a develop preset (now deleted) but I want a new one with the new camera profiles and I'd also like to make one for high iso pics. I know what settings I want to use, I just can't figure out how to make them before I import something. Thanks.
 
You'll need at least one image in the catalog in order to make a Develop Preset, though you could do it in your existing catalog. If you're storing the presets with the catalog (which is one of the preferences), then you'd have to export it from the old and import it into the new.

Alternately, if you are wanting to set the defaults on a per-ISO basis (also one of the preference settings), then you also need one image per ISO in order to set those defaults.

As for the organize by date option, you need to choose one of the copy or move options in the "File Handling" pulldown, not "add without moving".
 
OK, thanks. All this time I've been using LR for just "developing" images and then would empty them out of LR when done. I just never paid much attention to this part of it, and what I did read went in one ear and out the other, so to speak.
Man, the potential that's here...wow. Just learning it all though will be tough. I'm trying to get it all sorted out before I do too much so I don't have to re-do later.
 
The help files are quite useful.
No, really they are useful :)

I have seen the date order structure work for many LR users.
The thing about folder structures is inside of LR you can ignore them if you wish. IMO There are better ways to find images.
 
This new pc has a 75'g drive. I have read that if you partition your hd and keep the OS and programs together in a smaller partition you can get better performance.

I'm not sure that there's much, if any, performance gain to be had from such an approach. To improve performance, you would need to consider having two separate physical hard disk drives. By reading and writing using two drives, the IO done by the OS is more likely to be separate from the IO done by the application.

I plan to make the c drive about 25'g and then partition the rest just to hold images.

25' GB for the OS partition sounds like a lot of space to allocate for that purpose. I've successfully used a 65 GB OS/application partition (C: drive) over a period of time without running out of space. It ended up being filled to about 6'% capacity, thus still leaving quite a bit spare for loading up new applications. Your 25' GB would probably end up being 85% or so empty if it's just being used as an OS/applications partition.

I'd suggest partitioning the 75' GB drive as a 7' GB C: drive and a 68' GB D: drive for your data.

Possibly your choice was being made on the basis of keeping your My Documents folder on the C: drive. After initially setting up your system, which puts the My Documents folder on the C: drive, I would move the My Documents folder to the D: drive (say into a folder called D:\User\Username). Vista and XP both allow you to do that relatively easily. That would keep the bulk of your data on the D: drive.

If you are using Outlook as an email client, it's also possible to move your email program's files to the D: drive as well, thus keeping all your data consolidated within the D:\User\Username folder tree.

By shifting my My Documents folder to the D: drive, I consider that I have simplified doing backups of images and other data.

You can then also use a drive partition imaging program (e.g. Acronis True Image, Norton Ghost, EASEUS Partition Manager), to make a copy of your C: drive once you've configured everything to your liking. That way you can save the partition to your D: drive to be backed up with all your other files, and this will enable you to restore your system a bit more easily should things go awry. The partition imaging program can be run periodically to give you backup copies of the C: drive at different points in time.
 
Hi Witold, thanks for the good reply. Let me give you a more detailed (sorry if it's long) explanation of what I've done/been through so far. Then maybe you could tell me more.
I started on this partioning kick a couple of weeks ago after reading some stuff about it. I thought I could just use the Vista system to do it. After trying that route I learned that the OS puts some data way down in the drive with a bunch of space between. Vista would therefore only allow me to create an approx. 2'2 g partition to use for storage. The solution it seems was to buy software to be able to move this bit of data and partition like I wanted. I have ordered "Disc Director" to do this.
Going from memory here so numbers are approx--Using Vista info it says I have 698g with 687g in the C drive and 12g in a D drive that is an initial copy of the default OS as it was shipped. I'm supposed to have a 75'g drive but I have no idea where the extra 5'+g are, but...
Vista also tells me that I have about 127g already used. This is stuff I've installed and images that I haven't "processed" yet. I want to have space on my "working" partition cause I'm bad about not processing images in a timely manor. That's why I said 25'g.
Whatever's left after using 25' is what I planned to just partition as storage for my processed images. I'm not too good at all this, I don't know what IO is that you refer to. My whole partition idea may not be the "best" way to do it and that's ok. I just don't want to hurt myself in any way. For me it's as much an organizational thing as a performance thing.
Hopefully, if you've read through all this you can give me any further advice if needed. Thanks, Ernie
 
Ernie, engineers measure Gigs by powers of two

1kB=2^1' (2 to the tenth power) = 1'24 bytes, 1MB=1'24*1'24, 1GB=1'24*1'24*1'24 = 1.'74 billion bytes or so.

But the marketroids just take the total number of bytes and divide by one billion, which results in a bigger number, which looks 'better' on the box/advertising.

Not to mention, some of those bytes are lost to overhead processing (like folders, directories and other plumbing like that). Like hallways in a building, you need them, but they're not productive.

IO, more properly I/O, is input/output, the actual reading and writing of the magnetic bits on the hard disk platters, and its accessories/drivers. There's a physical limit to how fast that can possibly go, so some strategy is involved in segregating/timing uses of it. That may be a little esoteric in this instance, given your physical setup.

In general, I think you're on the right track tho'.
 
Thanks Brad. Now that you explain it the rusty wheels turned a little in my brain and I think I have seen that I/O was input/output. I still didn't know what that meant though.
I'll sure be glad to get all this re-organizing done. I'm finally going to use LR as a dam system, but figuring out how to re-do all my workflow and old methods is challenging. All you gurus may get tired of me before all this is done.
 
I started on this partioning kick a couple of weeks ago after reading some stuff about it. I thought I could just use the Vista system to do it. After trying that route I learned that the OS puts some data way down in the drive with a bunch of space between. Vista would therefore only allow me to create an approx. 2'2 g partition to use for storage.

Yes, that's fairly normal. When the OS is installed, the files tend to be scattered about the place on the system partition. Adding your own data to the mix adds in an extra scatter factor.

At OS installation time, it is possible to get around this issue by partitionaing the drive just prior to the start of the installation process proper. Having done this a few times over the years, that's when I normally set my partition sizes. In one case I set up three partitions, the first two about 6' GB in size while the third took up the remainder of the area on the hard disk. The reason for the three partitions was that I was setting the machine up for a dual-boot scenario, and the two operating systems were to be installed on the two smallest partitions.

The solution it seems was to buy software to be able to move this bit of data and partition like I wanted. I have ordered "Disc Director" to do this.

That will probably do the job for you just fine.

Going from memory here so numbers are approx--Using Vista info it says I have 698g with 687g in the C drive and 12g in a D drive that is an initial copy of the default OS as it was shipped. I'm supposed to have a 75'g drive but I have no idea where the extra 5'+g are,

As someone else pointed out, the difference is to do with drive manufacturers using 1''' as a unit of measure (with 1 GB = 1'''^3 bytes), while the OS uses 1'24 instead (with 1 GB = 1'24^3 bytes = 1,'73,741,824 bytes). That means that 75',''',''',''' bytes is reported as 698 GB (75'/(1.'24^3)) by the OS.

12g in a D drive that is an initial copy of the default OS as it was shipped

Did you make that initial copy yourself? Or is it something that you came already configured on your PC with a restore program?

If you made the intial copy yourself, then did you make an image of the OS partition? I think that that's what you'll need to do a successful system restore if you ever need to. Things like boot sectors need to be placed in the right spots for the OS to load, and a simple file copy won't usually get all that information.

Vista also tells me that I have about 127g already used. This is stuff I've installed and images that I haven't "processed" yet. I want to have space on my "working" partition cause I'm bad about not processing images in a timely manor. That's why I said 25'g.

What I'd try and do is create a smaller OS partition, around 75 GB in size. That should be plenty for most uses that I've seen, with some space in reserve.

Using 1'24 as the unit of measure, to achieve a setup where you've got 75 GB for the OS, 12 GB for the original system snapshot, and therefore 611 GB for your data, you'll need a two-phase approach. In the first phase, you can re-partition the system drive into two chunks, one being 25' GB for the OS and your original data and the other being 436 GB in size. Once that's completed you can start the second phase. This involves moving your My Documents folder to the 436 GB partition, therefore freeing up a considerable amount of space on the system partition. You can then repartition the system partition to make it 75 GB in size, allowing the data partition to grow accordingly. That should produce a 75 GB system partition, a 12 GB "backup" partition, and a 611 GB data partition.

Hopefully the above isn't too confusing.

If you have an original Vista installation DVD and a driver CD for your PC, it might be easier to copy all your data files (images and other odds and ends) to a removeable USB hard drive. Once you have assured yourself that your data is safe, you can reinstall Vista from scratch. That would enable you to delete all the partitions on the disk, and create a new set. This would wipe out all of your data, and you need to make sure you have all of the required installation files needed to rebuild your system. Once that's done, you can transfer your My Documents folder to the D: drive, and then copy your data back from the removeable USB disk drive.

I don't know what IO is that you refer to.

IO referred to input/output, which is the process of writing data to the disk and reading data from the disk.

My whole partition idea may not be the "best" way to do it and that's ok.

There's many different approaches that one can take. Yours is just as valid as any other. There is a slight downside that you still may not separate your data from the operating system disk as cleanly as possible.

I just don't want to hurt myself in any way.

That's why having a data backup to a removeable USB hard disk is a good idea (or some other method of backing up your data). I recently had my hard disk go bad on me, corrupting a few files, but these were backed up elsewhere. I was able to get everything back and working on the new disk that was purchased and installed, without any data loss.
 
Ernie,

When you mention "HP 93'' quad core" in your signature, do you mean a HP PC with an Intel Q93'' quad core processor? I originally thought that "HP 93''" was the model number of your PC, but it appears that HP use a different model naming convention.

Being a PC from HP, did the machine come configured with a visible restore partition? Was this the D: drive that you referred to? If so, the you might not have received Vista64 installation and driver media. Hence it's important to keep that restore partition. In my limited experience, the restore partition might be hidden (it hasn't had a drive letter assigned by the OS).

Whatever the case may be, if you haven't received Vista64 and associated hardware drivers on separate DVD media, then I would suggest that you determine how to go about making a backup copy onto DVDs of the restore partition. If your disk drive fails out of warranty, then you may not be able to recreate the system without these backup media at your disposal.

Your HP PC's user manual should provide details of how to backup that restore partition, as well as how to go about restoring the OS in the event that things go wrong. It's worth checking the details to ensure that you've got everything available that you might need in the event of having to do a system restore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top