sblitz Posted March 22, 2016 Share #41 Posted March 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) In that case, keep all your photos on a separate drive. I use one of those fast mobile drives and back up to a mirrored hard drive that stays at home. I also keep all my old SD cards (although I understand they lose memory after a while) and negatives if film (there was a thread asking that question). Having the photos in a separate drive is a bit cumbersome but keeps the machine running fast. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Hi sblitz, Take a look here New Mac Pro - what to prioritize in order to improve Lightroom?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
CheshireCat Posted March 22, 2016 Share #42 Posted March 22, 2016 Having the photos in a separate drive is a bit cumbersome but keeps the machine running fast. I don't think this makes any sensible difference, especially if your system drive is a SSD. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted March 22, 2016 Share #43 Posted March 22, 2016 SSD or hard drive, still swapping and the emptier the faster Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 22, 2016 Share #44 Posted March 22, 2016 SSD or hard drive, still swapping and the emptier the faster If your system is swapping, then you need more RAM. "the emptier the faster" does not make any sense. Hard drives are not trucks 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 22, 2016 Share #45 Posted March 22, 2016 If your system is swapping, then you need more RAM. "the emptier the faster" does not make any sense. Hard drives are not trucks Trucks don't get fragmented. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 22, 2016 Share #46 Posted March 22, 2016 Trucks don't get fragmented. Neither to OS X drives. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 22, 2016 Share #47 Posted March 22, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Trucks don't get fragmented. You are probably still living in the 90's. Fragmentation is not a problem on modern FS (plenty of optimizations) and large mechanical drives, let alone SSD. Besides, for photographic usage, even if loading a fragmented image took 100 more milliseconds, you won't be able to notice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 22, 2016 Share #48 Posted March 22, 2016 Neither to OS X drives. OS X and Windows drives can get fragmented, but it is unlikely that people will notice without performing accurate benchmarks. Modern FS take care of this and other problems under the hood. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted March 22, 2016 Share #49 Posted March 22, 2016 You are probably still living in the 90's. Fragmentation is not a problem on modern FS (plenty of optimizations) and large mechanical drives, let alone SSD. Besides, for photographic usage, even if loading a fragmented image took 100 more milliseconds, you won't be able to notice. Still not learned to stop the silly snide remarks? My comment referred to the "hard drives" you mentioned. Loading a single image is not even an issue with my slowish hard drive, particularly not with the compressed 24MP images I normally use. Cataloging a whole session of images on that drive is not as blindingly fast as you make it sound. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted March 22, 2016 Share #50 Posted March 22, 2016 Still not learned to stop the silly snide remarks? My comment referred to the "hard drives" you mentioned. Loading a single image is not even an issue with my slowish hard drive, particularly not with the compressed 24MP images I normally use. Cataloging a whole session of images on that drive is not as blindingly fast as you make it sound. Sorry for the snide remarks, Phillip. I don't think that cataloging on your system is slow because of fragmentation. I don't even think that normal (non-fragment) HD seek times to access each image while cataloging (I assume you mean "importing into the catalog") could have a big impact. If you are using Lightroom, the bottleneck could be the CPU. I understand Lr is much slower importing than other software because it simultaneously starts building previews, indexing, et cetera in the background. I am not happy with Lr import speed either, and I have a quite powerful Mac Pro with quite fast drives (not fragmented ). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted April 27, 2016 Share #51 Posted April 27, 2016 The best speed up is clean up the HD you have. Stay under 50% LR really uses very little computer. RAM is only useful if the HD has insufficient storage for computations. Faster processor #1 I travel with a Mac Air, and it works well 8 GB ram, 250 solid state HD. I run PS, Bridge and LR Close unused programs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted April 28, 2016 Author Share #52 Posted April 28, 2016 The computations are not done on the hard drive. In my experience having sufficient RAM is essential for LR performance. If you don't have sufficient RAM, the computer will do a lot of swapping to the hard drive. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.