SSDs with LR5

[camner]

I've been doing some digging about the extent to which using an SSD helps LR performance. Most of the articles I've read about this are somewhat old and refer either to LR 3 (most) or LR 4 (some). The general consensus seems to be that LR is mostly CPU bound and that therefore an SSD doesn't help LR performance very much. (In general, an SSD helps program launch time, but we don't launch LR that often during a day and saving a few seconds on launch doesn't seem to be worth the cost of an SSD).

Have folks here experimented with SSDs (vs HDDs) in LR 5 and noticed any appreciable difference in speed in how LR functions doing the day to day tasks of organizing images, developing them, and exporting them?

 

[clee01l]

SSDs are an advantage with file I/O operations. LR can benefit there too. LR makes extensive use of Working storage during develop operations and again during export or publish. So, LR can benefit from an SSD for these processes.

 

[Jim Wilde]

I assume you read Ian Lyons' article from back in 2011? Note the final paragraph:

So, having established that the use of an SSD offers only marginal improvements to Library preview rendering and photo load times in Develop module where can we realistically see an SSD helping a Lightroom user? Well, Lightroom isn’t just about rendering Library previews or loading photos into the the Develop module editing window. At Lightroom’s heart is a SQLite database, and the very fast access times associated with SSDs means that reading metadata from the catalog, searching the catalog, etc will be noticeably faster than on a conventional disk drive. Likewise, Library module thumbnail and preview scrolling (sometimes referred to as louping) will be noticeably faster and smoother.

 

[camner]

SSDs are an advantage with file I/O operations. LR can benefit there too. LR makes extensive use of Working storage during develop operations and again during export or publish. So, LR can benefit from an SSD for these processes.

Thanks, Cletus. Sounds as if it may be worth it to use an SSD that's large enough to hold the ACR preview cache files.
I'm also wondering if the fact that LR is now 64 bit means that when the memory is available, LR will utilize more RAM during the develop operations that when it was 32-bit and therefore limited to addressing 4GB?

I assume you read Ian Lyons' article from back in 2011? Note the final paragraph:

So, having established that the use of an SSD offers only marginal improvements to Library preview rendering and photo load times in Develop module where can we realistically see an SSD helping a Lightroom user? Well, Lightroom isn’t just about rendering Library previews or loading photos into the the Develop module editing window. At Lightroom’s heart is a SQLite database, and the very fast access times associated with SSDs means that reading metadata from the catalog, searching the catalog, etc will be noticeably faster than on a conventional disk drive. Likewise, Library module thumbnail and preview scrolling (sometimes referred to as louping) will be noticeably faster and smoother.

Yup, I did read it. What I noted in my reading (I can't remember if it was in Ian's article or somewhere else that I read this) also was that it seems that back in 2011 (LR 3?) LR wasn't very good at taking advantage of multithreading and the multiple cores that many machines have. What I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) is that one reason LR didn't benefit as much from faster disk access time was that since LR is processor intensive AND didn't take full advantage of multiple cores, that therefore LR was "processor bound" and not "I/O bound" and that fact limited the benefit of a faster drive (SSD). Since we're now at LR 5, I thought perhaps Adobe had improved the multithreading/multicore capability and that therefore if LR were less processor bound the benefit to having working files (caches, etc.) on an SSD would be greater today than in 2011. But this is all speculation on my part, of course.

Thanks both for your replies.

 

[ukbrown]

With 48GB in your machine nearly a;ll of what you access from disk will be in cache for a very long time. LR also seems to try and pre cache working on the basis that people step though a filmstrip when working. SSD's will make a difference, how much matters to you is the question, if you are expecting LR to be 20% faster I think you will be disappointed, 3% and I think you will be happy.

 

[Selwin]

Hi Camner, did you add an SSD yet and if so, how do you like it?

I changed the configuration of my system. I used to have all of my images on a conventional drive and my catalog on a super fast Accelsior SSD. This was already a huge boost in performance for searching and scrolling through images.

I now added a second SSD (128GB Samsung 830) to my system and use it for my recent images. These are the images I regularly work on. When the SSD reaches its limit, I move the oldest images to my conventional drive. Works like a charm. I always use TIFF because they save so fast and now they save even faster.

Also, I now have all of my recent images together on one drive. This makes it very easy to maintain a copy on my Macbook. I simply set a CCC backup task to copy the entire 128GB drive to my Macbook so I always have my recent images there too, along with a copy of my LR catalog.

 

[camner]

Yes, I did get an SSD, 2 of them in fact. I also bought a Sonnet SOTSAT6SSDE2 PCIe card that holds two SSDs and supports SATA III (6GB/sec) vs the Mac Pro native SATA II (3GB/sec). Wow, what a difference! I will so that that most of the profound difference is OUTSIDE of LR, though. As was pointed out in this thread (and elsewhere), file read/writes are not the major causes of LR slowdowns. But the speedup in LR was noticeable.

One of the SSDs is my boot volume (and holds the LR catalog, ACR cache, and previews), and the other holds primarily recent imports of RAW files into LR. I'm using it just as you do, to hold "things I haven't worked on yet) and plan to move "developed" images off to an HDD.

One glitch, however. There is a firmware bug in the Sonnet card that is known to affect 2010 Mac Pros (5,1), which I have: if the boot volume is on the Sonnet PCIe card, holding down the Option key at startup in order to be able to choose the startup volume does NOT work. That's quite a drawback.

 

[Selwin]

Good to hear about your improvements. I decided to slap down 500 USD for a OWC Accelsior 240GB PCIe card. It's fully bootable and works just like a normal Internal HD, speed is over 600 MB/s. I split those 240GB into 3 partitions: 80GB boot, 100GB Lightroom catalog+previews, 60GB Scratch for LR ACR cache and PS CS scratch. It was ridiculously expensive but in the end I am very pleased.

If you would open up the enclosure of your external SSD that holds your boot drive and insert it as an internal Drive, you will have your boot options back and it will be plenty fast for a boot drive, even with SATA2.

I thought eSATA was more of a professional solution, where USB3 is currently the consumer way for fast EHD connectivity. I've been looking at PCIe cards too, my best bet now is a RocketU 1144E (2x USB3 and 2x eSATA) or wait for a new product by CalDigit with the same ports. I will wait first for what CalDigit has to offer, then decide. Both cards cost between 150~200 USD. My primary use is having fast I/O to EHD when backing up large amounts of data. Copying 2TB of data to an EHD via USB2 isn't fun anymore....

 

[camner]

Good to hear about your improvements. I decided to slap down 500 USD for a OWC Accelsior 240GB PCIe card. It's fully bootable and works just like a normal Internal HD, speed is over 600 MB/s. I split those 240GB into 3 partitions: 80GB boot, 100GB Lightroom catalog+previews, 60GB Scratch for LR ACR cache and PS CS scratch. It was ridiculously expensive but in the end I am very pleased.

Why did you partition the 240GB SSD? Given that SSDs don't have rotational latency, is there any reason 3 volumes are better than one?

If you would open up the enclosure of your external SSD that holds your boot drive and insert it as an internal Drive, you will have your boot options back and it will be plenty fast for a boot drive, even with SATA2.

I don't have an external SSD. When I realized that I had lost the ability to choose my boot volume on startup I bought a bracket from OWC that allowed me to mount the SSD in the optical bay (where one can install a 2nd optical drive or another HD if one desires), so that SSD is on the SATA II bus.

I thought eSATA was more of a professional solution, where USB3 is currently the consumer way for fast EHD connectivity. I've been looking at PCIe cards too, my best bet now is a RocketU 1144E (2x USB3 and 2x eSATA) or wait for a new product by CalDigit with the same ports. I will wait first for what CalDigit has to offer, then decide. Both cards cost between 150~200 USD. My primary use is having fast I/O to EHD when backing up large amounts of data. Copying 2TB of data to an EHD via USB2 isn't fun anymore....

My CalDigit card (2x eSATA + 2x USB 3.0) is exactly for that reason. I use the eSATA ports with two docks (one from OWC and one from someplace else) and have my backup drives as bare drives. USB 2.0 just is no way to back up large amounts of data, even when one is only backing up items that have changed since the last backup.

My only problem with the CalDigit card is that the USB 3.0 is a bit flakey. It does not use OS X native drivers, so the drivers are not available until after boot, so one can't boot off of USB. The eSATA drivers are built in, so one CAN boot off of eSATA. Also, and I understand this is not limited to this card, is that when an external drive is connected to the USB 3.0 ports and is idle to the point that the drive spins down, often the OS will think that the drive has been ejected and OS X will pop the message "Hey you there, human, you disconnected a drive without ejecting it. How many times do I need to tell you not to do that!!??"

 

[Selwin]

Why did you partition the 240GB SSD? Given that SSDs don't have rotational latency, is there any reason 3 volumes are better than one?

Not from a performance perspective. I like partitions because they're easier to backup. I can simply select the System partition as a whole to backup to an external location or to a disk image. I can simply select the Lightroom partition to backup all LR catalogs I have. I do the same with my images. I have a "Master" partition of 1.9TB that holds all of my images except the recent ones. I have a "Recent" SSD (not partitioned) of 128GB. I have a "RemoteBackup" partition on some other internal disk that accumulates all of my data (personal data, docs, but also backup images of all of my home folders of all of my macs). Then I have two 2TB external drives, each in 3 partitions (Master, Recent and RemoteBackup) to backup those 3 partitions to and keep them safe. I know I'm anal about backups but I've never lost anything.

My CalDigit card (2x eSATA + 2x USB 3.0) is exactly for that reason. I use the eSATA ports with two docks (one from OWC and one from someplace else) and have my backup drives as bare drives. USB 2.0 just is no way to back up large amounts of data, even when one is only backing up items that have changed since the last backup.

My only problem with the CalDigit card is that the USB 3.0 is a bit flakey. It does not use OS X native drivers, so the drivers are not available until after boot, so one can't boot off of USB. The eSATA drivers are built in, so one CAN boot off of eSATA. Also, and I understand this is not limited to this card, is that when an external drive is connected to the USB 3.0 ports and is idle to the point that the drive spins down, often the OS will think that the drive has been ejected and OS X will pop the message "Hey you there, human, you disconnected a drive without ejecting it. How many times do I need to tell you not to do that!!??"

Yes I heard about those issues with the CalDigit card. From a source at CalDigit I heard they're working on a new 2xUSB/2xeSATA card. He wouldn't let me say when it hits the market but it's soon enough for me to wait for it. If it's not what I'm looking for, I'll go for either the RocketU 1144E (newer) or the 1144CM (older but reliable).

 

[camner]

Not from a performance perspective. I like partitions because they're easier to backup. I can simply select the System partition as a whole to backup to an external location or to a disk image. I can simply select the Lightroom partition to backup all LR catalogs I have. I do the same with my images. I have a "Master" partition of 1.9TB that holds all of my images except the recent ones. I have a "Recent" SSD (not partitioned) of 128GB. I have a "RemoteBackup" partition on some other internal disk that accumulates all of my data (personal data, docs, but also backup images of all of my home folders of all of my macs). Then I have two 2TB external drives, each in 3 partitions (Master, Recent and RemoteBackup) to backup those 3 partitions to and keep them safe. I know I'm anal about backups but I've never lost anything.

I'm quite anal about backups, too, probably too much so. I also keep my system on its own (SSD) volume, but it isn't partitioned. In addition to the system I keep the LR catalog (and therefore also the LR previews) on that volume. I use Windows 7 via Parallels, and I keep the 40GB Windows volume (as a mac file) on the boot volume as well. All that occupies about 180 of the 240 GB, and as I've read that SSDs can slow down a lot when they get full, I probably won't go much over that. The ACR cache files are on the 120GB second SSD, along with the most recent LR files. Finally, I keep the LR catalog backups on yet a different volume (my HD "Data" volume). Obviously, keeping the catalog backups on the same drive as the catalog is not a perfect set up.

I have 4 external drives which I use on a weekly basis to clone the system volume, the data ssd, and the data volume (labeled Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, and Week 4). I also have a TM volume, which I have to say has only been useful to me a couple of times. I also have been using another internal drive for Synk, a backup/synchronize program I've had for a while. I've used that more often. Synk works automatically in the background rather than at time intervals. Most recently, I purchased a CrashPlan subscription for cloud backup, and it has the ability to also backup locally. The primary value of that is that if one loses one's hard drive rather than downloaded everything via the internet from the cloud one has the local backup as well. Clearly this is overkill....I don't need both CrashPlan and Synk locally and I'll give up one pretty soon, as soon as I have the time to test which one feels the most robust in terms of restore (there are too many horror stories about great backup routines from which one can't restore!). Oh, I also once a month take a clone of my 3 active drives and store it at work. I'm not sure what I will do about that when I retire and am no longer working.

And I, too, have never lost anything. I have certainly had hard drives fail, not to mention "operator error" disasters on more than one occasion, and my "anality" has saved my bacon.

Yes I heard about those issues with the CalDigit card. From a source at CalDigit I heard they're working on a new 2xUSB/2xeSATA card. He wouldn't let me say when it hits the market but it's soon enough for me to wait for it. If it's not what I'm looking for, I'll go for either the RocketU 1144E (newer) or the 1144CM (older but reliable).

Hmmmm....you have friends in high places at CalDigit?

I'm glad that CalDigit is working on a new card, but I'm not sure I'll get it. It was a pretty expensive card and I was able to find a USB3.0 (only) card (by ORICO) for about $20 which isn't flakey at all. The only thing that might lead me to change my mind is that my PCIe slots are all occupied, and if I need another slot, something will have to go.

 

[Jack Henry]

Just as an addition to all of the backup strategies, you should also, on occasion, actually test your backups by doing a full restore. Where I worked needed a restore and found that, for some reason, backups newer than 6 months were faulty and wouldn't restore correctly.

 

[Selwin]

I'm quite anal about backups, too, probably too much so.

Quite refreshing to see I'm not the only one.

I keep the LR catalog backups on yet a different volume […]

Yes I do that too, even though I didn't mention it.

I have 4 external drives which I use on a weekly basis to clone the system volume, the data ssd, and the data volume (labeled Week 1, Week 2, Week 3, and Week 4).

Wow, you actually go a step further than me I do everything with CCC and scheduled backups. I don't need to insert drives for the backups to run, except for the 2TB external drives I mentioned above. I have bought an Airport Extreme router just for the USB connection so I can use Time Machine with my Macbook without fuzz.

I also have a TM volume, which I have to say has only been useful to me a couple of times.

My TM volume is just a partition on one of the internal HD's. I use TM only for that one-time occasion where I need to have a file that was there once but has been deleted since. All of my other backups are of the "latest" type.

I also have been using another internal drive for Synk, […] I purchased a CrashPlan subscription for cloud backup […]

Never seen the value in cloud backups, provided I run my backups the way I designed them. If I do, I've got everything backed up on one of those 2TB external drives: my life's work in RAW files, all PS edits, my 2 home folders and all personal data is in the off-site location. It's just that I could lose 2-3 weeks of data is my house would burn down or if all equipment would get stolen. I can't justify spending so much money for that. But hey that is just me….

And I, too, have never lost anything. I have certainly had hard drives fail, not to mention "operator error" disasters on more than one occasion

Yes I had that too. There was this one time when I lost all edits in a recent assignment. I was using LR4 as current, when I thought I'd check out LR5. After installing Mountain Lion (I was still on Snow Leopard at that time) and an evaluation copy of LR5, I decided I'd simply try it out on a pregnancy shoot I did that same day. So I created a clean LR5 catalog from a LR4 copy so I had my keywords and presets, but no images. I did my picks, labels, keywords and develop processing and I was quite pleased with LR5. Then at some point I forgot I had not adapted my backup strategy for the new LR5 catalog and I only backed up my LR4 catalog, which I continued to use for all other things. I don't know how, but in the process of abandoning Snow Leopard I lost that LR5 catalog. I still have the RAWs and I still have the exports for the client so if he returns for more prints I'm sure I can create new developed images that look just like the ones he has, but it's a cloudy spot on my otherwise blue sky of backup history.

Hmmmm....you have friends in high places at CalDigit?

Not quite. He isn't high and we're not friends really. I contacted CalDigit once by email because I had a problem with a USB3-only card from them. He was very helpful then. In the end I returned that card to my local dutch CalDigit reseller. Now that I'm looking at other options, I decided to email him again to ask about this new card and this was the info I received. I suppose he just wanted to please...

I was able to find a USB3.0 (only) card (by ORICO) for about $20 which isn't flakey at all. The only thing that might lead me to change my mind is that my PCIe slots are all occupied, and if I need another slot, something will have to go.

That is so funny. I did exactly the same. My ORICO is a PFU3-2P and it was a lemon. It completely messed up my brand new Mountain Lion system, to a point where I simply had to reinstall the OS. I still have the card but I've taken it out of my MP. I know lemons are rare and that many people have had better luck with this card, but the time I spent to fix it was much worse than having to spend about 200 bucks on a real card. So that is what I'll do.

As ever, nice talking to you

 

[Selwin]

Just as an addition to all of the backup strategies, you should also, on occasion, actually test your backups by doing a full restore. Where I worked needed a restore and found that, for some reason, backups newer than 6 months were faulty and wouldn't restore correctly.

Hi Jack, that is a good tip. I just may simulate a major system crash in the near future. On OSX, it's so easy to test if a system clone actually works by simply restarting from that clone.

I actually did use my system backups recently when I needed to reinstall my system partition.
I keep a couple of disk images containing several steps of install progress:
#1 a DMG containing a fresh Mountain Lion install: updated to 10.8.5, no additional software except Carbon Copy Cloner.
#2 a "last good" copy of my current system, containing my photo software, printer drivers and supporting apps.
#3 a daily backup of my Home Folder.

#1 is particularly useful when having to reinstall completely from scratch. #2 I did not have previously, only #3. But when things go really wrong (corrupted files on a system partition) an entire system partition clone from a couple of weeks ago is much better than only having the latest - corrupted - version in a backup. So I may consider to refresh that #2 every month after establishing all is still working well...

This reply may be more than you bargained for, in case of which I apologise...

 

[camner]

Just as an addition to all of the backup strategies, you should also, on occasion, actually test your backups by doing a full restore. Where I worked needed a restore and found that, for some reason, backups newer than 6 months were faulty and wouldn't restore correctly.

Right you are. My weekly clone backups have been tested multiple times. I've never tested the cloud backup except for a few files at a time.