Can SSD improve the performance of Adobe Lightroom?
It seems that not a single week goes by without another issue of using SSD to improve the performance of Lightroom. Similar questions also appear regularly on the Lightroom user forum on the Adobe website. Unfortunately, this question cannot be answered unambiguously. This article will help reveal some of the aspects affecting performance. And at the end, I will compare the overall performance of Lightroom on a regular hard drive and SSD.
First, pay attention to the operating system. Adobe's minimum system requirements for the Windows platform assume that a normal laptop with Windows XP and 2GB of RAM installed will be enough for normal use. In fact, everything is not so rosy. First of all, Windows XP is over 10 years old, and it can handle only 4GB of RAM (and each individual application has only 2GB), and it came out long before the time when multiprocessor / multi-core CPUs became the norm. In addition, if you use the / 3GB option (allows applications to use more than 2GB of RAM), then the rather common problem of memory fragmentation arises. On the other hand, Lightroom is fully compatible with computers built on a multiprocessor / multi-core CPU, and can run as a 64-bit application on Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Windows Vista 64 and Windows 7 64. The main advantage of 64-bit OSs is that a properly written application is no longer limited to 4GB of RAM. Lightroom is one of these applications, so it works faster with more system memory, especially if all other applications run in the background.
Second, let's look at the processor. Lightroom is extremely demanding on the CPU. In particular, in the case of rendering and loading an image into the Develop module with simultaneous suppression of the luminance and color noise, sharpening, correcting the geometric distortion of the lens. In this case, the performance of Lightroom will noticeably increase if Intel Core i5 or i7 processors are used, especially in conjunction with 4 or more gigabytes of RAM.
Apple MacBook Pro early 2011
It is worth noting that the use of the latest generation Core i5 and i7 processors (Sandy Bridge) gives a significant performance boost when creating previews compared to last year’s Intel processors, and an even more significant increase compared to 2009 Intel Core 2 Duo. For example, I personally launched Lightroom 3.4 on MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo (mid-2009 model) and MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 (early 2011 model). The numbers show the average time of three launches, the import of 300 photos (Canon 5D Mk II, RAW format) from a regular disc and the creation of a 1: 1 preview. The import was made in the Library module, and the photos were not subjected to any changes before or during the import.
')
MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 8GB ram = 32 min 10 sec
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 4GB ram = 19 min 40 sec
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 8GB ram = 15 min 17 sec
The figures indicate that the Core i7 Quad, used in 15 "and 17" MacBook Pro models in early 2011, creates a 1: 1 preview twice as fast as a Core 2 Duo in a 15 "MacBook Pro. Moreover, even with 4GB, the Core i7 Quad turns out to be much faster than Core 2 Duo with 8GB of RAM. Both computers used the Hitachi 500GB 7200rpm internal hard drive. I suppose that computers of this configuration, but with Windows Vista 64 or Windows 7 64 installed, would show similar performance improvement.
Users often complain about exporting photos from Lightroom. This aspect is also worthy of comparison on the three configurations above. The same 300 photos taken by Canon 5D Mk II exported to JPEG (100% size and 80% quality) took part in this test. In this case, various settings were applied to the photos - local filters, gradient filters, noise reduction and correction of optical distortions of the lenses.
MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 8GB ram = 36 min 26 sec (7.3s)
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 4GB ram = 22 min (4.4s)
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 8GB ram = 16 min (3.2s)
(Figures in parentheses show the average time taken to export one photo)
And again, as in the case of importing and creating a preview, it can be seen that the use of a new Core i7 Quad processor can reduce the time taken to export photos by more than 2 times, compared to Core 2 Duo.
Obviously, sharing the Quad Core, Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost technologies in the new Intel Core i7 Sandy Bridge processors provides a significant performance boost over earlier MacBook Pros. And in order to emphasize this increase, it is worth mentioning that the new 2.3 GHz i7 Quad-core MacBook Pro creates a preview a bit faster than my desktop eight-core Mac Pro 3.0 GHz with 16GB of RAM (model started in 2008). It seems that the key to increased performance lies in Turbo Boost technology. It allows the processor to operate at an increased frequency (for example, 3.4 GHz instead of 2.3 GHz) when it (the processor) operates within acceptable limits for power and temperature.
If you want to know more about MacBook Quad, I recommend reading the comprehensive review written by Lloyd Chambers for Mac Performance Guide . I will allow myself one quote from the review: "In short, if your work depends on the performance of the MacBook Pro, throw away your old model and run headlong for the 2011 models of the MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz (15" or 17 ")"
Here you can ask a question - why do I talk only about processors and RAM? What about SSD? In fact, CPU and RAM are the only components that have a significant impact on the time spent on creating previews in the Library and Develop modules. And given the fact that this is the most costly action in terms of time, you can safely ignore other things affecting performance. However, despite the above, I would like to check whether the use of SSD has any impact on performance. To do this, instead of the original 500GB 7200 rpm hard drive, I installed one of the most proven SSDs in my computer - 240GB OWC Mercury Extreme. I placed the hard drive in the slot for the optical drive, which allowed me to choose which drive to boot from. If we talk about read / write speed, then using SSD it is possible to exceed the threshold of 240 MB / s, while traditional drives are limited to 100 MB / s.
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD
So, it is time to see whether the established SSD will improve the creation time of the preview in the Library module. To do this, I conducted a series of tests with Lightroom, directories and previews, a RAW cache of snapshots, and photos placed on an SSD disk / hard disk, and distributed across both drives. Dropping the application, photos, and cache across different disks avoids read / write collisions and reduces CPU usage. Consequently, we can see some positive aspects for the configuration with two disks. This test also used the familiar 300 photos taken on the Canon 5D Mk II in RAW format. The test results shown below. As a base result, we used the operating time with all components located on a regular hard disk of 7200rpm.
Time * import and create previews 1: 1 for 300 photos (Canon 5D MkII, RAW format)
* The total import time fluctuated within 6-7 seconds, and the time in brackets indicates the average import time and creating previews for a single photo.
the table below shows that despite where the catalog was located, previews, the cache of photos, the total time spent on importing photos and creating previews fluctuates very little (26 seconds the difference between the best and worst results). Based on the results, we can recommend transferring the application itself, the Camera Raw cache, the catalog and the preview to the SSD, and placing the photos themselves on a regular hard disk (3). And even this configuration is only slightly faster than when everything is located on the hard disk (5). It is also seen that the use of SSD reduces the time to create a preview when photos are placed on the SSD. Although frankly speaking, it is unlikely that SSDs can act as a photo repository, at least until more capacious and less expensive solid-state drives appear on the market.
And what if you can not install two internal drives in your computer? Most laptops and desktops have ports for connecting external drives. If you look at a MacBook Pro, you can connect an external drive via Firewire 800. The following table contains the results obtained when using an external hard drive (G-Drive mobile 500GB) connected via Firewire 800 instead of the internal additional SATA 300.
Time * create previews 1: 1 for 300 photos (Canon 5D MkII, RAW format)
It can be seen that performance deterioration in comparison with two internal SATA 300 disks practically does not occur. So, we can safely say that all doubts about the use of an external drive connected via Firewire 800 are unfounded. Theoretically, the drive can be connected via USB 2.0, but I found that I could not achieve the same performance as when using Firewire 800.
The foregoing applies only to the Library module. The Develop module uses these previews only at the very beginning, subsequently loading their own previews from the Camera Raw cache by generating them from the original photos in the background. Although this is not well documented, the availability of this cache can significantly reduce the photo load time in the Develop module. And, depending on the filters applied to the photo, the download time can be reduced from fractions of a second to several seconds. The above results are compared as a different location of the catalog, preview, cache and photos has an impact on the loading time of photos in the Develop module. As mentioned earlier, no filters were applied to the photos, so the results show the best possible time.
Upload time of 300 photos to the Develop module
To obtain these results, I used a script that automatically loaded each photo into the module, and switched to the next one only after the “Loading” label disappeared. Using this script, you can automatically sort through all the photos in a specific folder. The time shown in parentheses indicates the time during which the photo was fully displayed in the Develop module. This is the average time required for the “Loading” message to disappear. Just as in the case of the Library module, the fastest loading occurred when everything was stored on the SSD (4) and the slowest when everything was located on a regular hard disk (5). A compromise between download speed and disk space was reached in configuration 3, when the application, directory, preview and Camera Raw cache were on the SSD, and the photos themselves were on the hard disk.
Just as in the case of the Library module, I decided to check whether the load time for photos will increase when using an external drive connected via Firewire 800. These results are shown in the following table.
Upload time of 300 photos to the Develop module
The table shows that a noticeable increase in download time occurs only when everything, except for the application itself, is on an external disk. In the remaining two configurations, the speed is comparable to the internal SATA 300 drives.
Module Develop - the inscription “Loading”
It reminded me of another poorly documented aspect of Camera Raw. It consists in the fact that the size of its cache was sufficient to store a reasonable number of images. By default, this size is set to 1 GB, which is naturally extremely small for any real use (in this case, from 60 to 100 photos taken by Canon 5D MkII fit into the cache). And the maximum size of 200 GB is too large for any SSD. In general, I believe that 20 GB is enough for comfortable work on a laptop. The screenshot shows the Lightroom settings window, where you can change the size and size of the Camera Raw cache.
Camera Raw Cache - Location and Size Settings
Thus, it is established that the use of SSD gives a minimal performance improvement when creating previews in the Library module and loading photos into the Develop module. Yes, but Lightroom is not limited to creating previews and uploading photos to the visual editor of the Develop module. Lightroom is based on a SQLite database, and the minimum access time provided by an SSD means that reading metadata from a directory, searching the directory, etc. can run much faster than regular hard drives. Similarly, the scrolling of small versions and full-fledged previews in the Library module is noticeable faster and more smoothly. Using SSD also reduces the application startup time and computer boot time. In general, installing Lightroom (including the catalog, preview, Camera Raw cache) on the SSD creates a more responsive app feel than installing on a hard disk. Nevertheless, from the above tests it is clear that, as it would not want to believe in it, SSDs are not a magic wand.
First, pay attention to the operating system. Adobe's minimum system requirements for the Windows platform assume that a normal laptop with Windows XP and 2GB of RAM installed will be enough for normal use. In fact, everything is not so rosy. First of all, Windows XP is over 10 years old, and it can handle only 4GB of RAM (and each individual application has only 2GB), and it came out long before the time when multiprocessor / multi-core CPUs became the norm. In addition, if you use the / 3GB option (allows applications to use more than 2GB of RAM), then the rather common problem of memory fragmentation arises. On the other hand, Lightroom is fully compatible with computers built on a multiprocessor / multi-core CPU, and can run as a 64-bit application on Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Windows Vista 64 and Windows 7 64. The main advantage of 64-bit OSs is that a properly written application is no longer limited to 4GB of RAM. Lightroom is one of these applications, so it works faster with more system memory, especially if all other applications run in the background.
Second, let's look at the processor. Lightroom is extremely demanding on the CPU. In particular, in the case of rendering and loading an image into the Develop module with simultaneous suppression of the luminance and color noise, sharpening, correcting the geometric distortion of the lens. In this case, the performance of Lightroom will noticeably increase if Intel Core i5 or i7 processors are used, especially in conjunction with 4 or more gigabytes of RAM.
Apple MacBook Pro early 2011
It is worth noting that the use of the latest generation Core i5 and i7 processors (Sandy Bridge) gives a significant performance boost when creating previews compared to last year’s Intel processors, and an even more significant increase compared to 2009 Intel Core 2 Duo. For example, I personally launched Lightroom 3.4 on MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo (mid-2009 model) and MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 (early 2011 model). The numbers show the average time of three launches, the import of 300 photos (Canon 5D Mk II, RAW format) from a regular disc and the creation of a 1: 1 preview. The import was made in the Library module, and the photos were not subjected to any changes before or during the import.
')
MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 8GB ram = 32 min 10 sec
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 4GB ram = 19 min 40 sec
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 8GB ram = 15 min 17 sec
The figures indicate that the Core i7 Quad, used in 15 "and 17" MacBook Pro models in early 2011, creates a 1: 1 preview twice as fast as a Core 2 Duo in a 15 "MacBook Pro. Moreover, even with 4GB, the Core i7 Quad turns out to be much faster than Core 2 Duo with 8GB of RAM. Both computers used the Hitachi 500GB 7200rpm internal hard drive. I suppose that computers of this configuration, but with Windows Vista 64 or Windows 7 64 installed, would show similar performance improvement.
Users often complain about exporting photos from Lightroom. This aspect is also worthy of comparison on the three configurations above. The same 300 photos taken by Canon 5D Mk II exported to JPEG (100% size and 80% quality) took part in this test. In this case, various settings were applied to the photos - local filters, gradient filters, noise reduction and correction of optical distortions of the lenses.
MacBook Pro 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo with 8GB ram = 36 min 26 sec (7.3s)
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 4GB ram = 22 min (4.4s)
MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz Core i7 with 8GB ram = 16 min (3.2s)
(Figures in parentheses show the average time taken to export one photo)
And again, as in the case of importing and creating a preview, it can be seen that the use of a new Core i7 Quad processor can reduce the time taken to export photos by more than 2 times, compared to Core 2 Duo.
Obviously, sharing the Quad Core, Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost technologies in the new Intel Core i7 Sandy Bridge processors provides a significant performance boost over earlier MacBook Pros. And in order to emphasize this increase, it is worth mentioning that the new 2.3 GHz i7 Quad-core MacBook Pro creates a preview a bit faster than my desktop eight-core Mac Pro 3.0 GHz with 16GB of RAM (model started in 2008). It seems that the key to increased performance lies in Turbo Boost technology. It allows the processor to operate at an increased frequency (for example, 3.4 GHz instead of 2.3 GHz) when it (the processor) operates within acceptable limits for power and temperature.
If you want to know more about MacBook Quad, I recommend reading the comprehensive review written by Lloyd Chambers for Mac Performance Guide . I will allow myself one quote from the review: "In short, if your work depends on the performance of the MacBook Pro, throw away your old model and run headlong for the 2011 models of the MacBook Pro 2.3 GHz (15" or 17 ")"
Here you can ask a question - why do I talk only about processors and RAM? What about SSD? In fact, CPU and RAM are the only components that have a significant impact on the time spent on creating previews in the Library and Develop modules. And given the fact that this is the most costly action in terms of time, you can safely ignore other things affecting performance. However, despite the above, I would like to check whether the use of SSD has any impact on performance. To do this, instead of the original 500GB 7200 rpm hard drive, I installed one of the most proven SSDs in my computer - 240GB OWC Mercury Extreme. I placed the hard drive in the slot for the optical drive, which allowed me to choose which drive to boot from. If we talk about read / write speed, then using SSD it is possible to exceed the threshold of 240 MB / s, while traditional drives are limited to 100 MB / s.
OWC Mercury Extreme Pro SSD
So, it is time to see whether the established SSD will improve the creation time of the preview in the Library module. To do this, I conducted a series of tests with Lightroom, directories and previews, a RAW cache of snapshots, and photos placed on an SSD disk / hard disk, and distributed across both drives. Dropping the application, photos, and cache across different disks avoids read / write collisions and reduces CPU usage. Consequently, we can see some positive aspects for the configuration with two disks. This test also used the familiar 300 photos taken on the Canon 5D Mk II in RAW format. The test results shown below. As a base result, we used the operating time with all components located on a regular hard disk of 7200rpm.
Time * import and create previews 1: 1 for 300 photos (Canon 5D MkII, RAW format)
* The total import time fluctuated within 6-7 seconds, and the time in brackets indicates the average import time and creating previews for a single photo.
the table below shows that despite where the catalog was located, previews, the cache of photos, the total time spent on importing photos and creating previews fluctuates very little (26 seconds the difference between the best and worst results). Based on the results, we can recommend transferring the application itself, the Camera Raw cache, the catalog and the preview to the SSD, and placing the photos themselves on a regular hard disk (3). And even this configuration is only slightly faster than when everything is located on the hard disk (5). It is also seen that the use of SSD reduces the time to create a preview when photos are placed on the SSD. Although frankly speaking, it is unlikely that SSDs can act as a photo repository, at least until more capacious and less expensive solid-state drives appear on the market.
And what if you can not install two internal drives in your computer? Most laptops and desktops have ports for connecting external drives. If you look at a MacBook Pro, you can connect an external drive via Firewire 800. The following table contains the results obtained when using an external hard drive (G-Drive mobile 500GB) connected via Firewire 800 instead of the internal additional SATA 300.
Time * create previews 1: 1 for 300 photos (Canon 5D MkII, RAW format)
It can be seen that performance deterioration in comparison with two internal SATA 300 disks practically does not occur. So, we can safely say that all doubts about the use of an external drive connected via Firewire 800 are unfounded. Theoretically, the drive can be connected via USB 2.0, but I found that I could not achieve the same performance as when using Firewire 800.
The foregoing applies only to the Library module. The Develop module uses these previews only at the very beginning, subsequently loading their own previews from the Camera Raw cache by generating them from the original photos in the background. Although this is not well documented, the availability of this cache can significantly reduce the photo load time in the Develop module. And, depending on the filters applied to the photo, the download time can be reduced from fractions of a second to several seconds. The above results are compared as a different location of the catalog, preview, cache and photos has an impact on the loading time of photos in the Develop module. As mentioned earlier, no filters were applied to the photos, so the results show the best possible time.
Upload time of 300 photos to the Develop module
To obtain these results, I used a script that automatically loaded each photo into the module, and switched to the next one only after the “Loading” label disappeared. Using this script, you can automatically sort through all the photos in a specific folder. The time shown in parentheses indicates the time during which the photo was fully displayed in the Develop module. This is the average time required for the “Loading” message to disappear. Just as in the case of the Library module, the fastest loading occurred when everything was stored on the SSD (4) and the slowest when everything was located on a regular hard disk (5). A compromise between download speed and disk space was reached in configuration 3, when the application, directory, preview and Camera Raw cache were on the SSD, and the photos themselves were on the hard disk.
Just as in the case of the Library module, I decided to check whether the load time for photos will increase when using an external drive connected via Firewire 800. These results are shown in the following table.
Upload time of 300 photos to the Develop module
The table shows that a noticeable increase in download time occurs only when everything, except for the application itself, is on an external disk. In the remaining two configurations, the speed is comparable to the internal SATA 300 drives.
Module Develop - the inscription “Loading”
It reminded me of another poorly documented aspect of Camera Raw. It consists in the fact that the size of its cache was sufficient to store a reasonable number of images. By default, this size is set to 1 GB, which is naturally extremely small for any real use (in this case, from 60 to 100 photos taken by Canon 5D MkII fit into the cache). And the maximum size of 200 GB is too large for any SSD. In general, I believe that 20 GB is enough for comfortable work on a laptop. The screenshot shows the Lightroom settings window, where you can change the size and size of the Camera Raw cache.
Camera Raw Cache - Location and Size Settings
Thus, it is established that the use of SSD gives a minimal performance improvement when creating previews in the Library module and loading photos into the Develop module. Yes, but Lightroom is not limited to creating previews and uploading photos to the visual editor of the Develop module. Lightroom is based on a SQLite database, and the minimum access time provided by an SSD means that reading metadata from a directory, searching the directory, etc. can run much faster than regular hard drives. Similarly, the scrolling of small versions and full-fledged previews in the Library module is noticeable faster and more smoothly. Using SSD also reduces the application startup time and computer boot time. In general, installing Lightroom (including the catalog, preview, Camera Raw cache) on the SSD creates a more responsive app feel than installing on a hard disk. Nevertheless, from the above tests it is clear that, as it would not want to believe in it, SSDs are not a magic wand.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/125537/
All Articles