# LR3 Random Slowness



## Mary Ann (Jul 7, 2010)

[color=#''33'']I am so FRUSTRATED. I am having so many random slowness issues. I will build a catalog, build the 1:1 previews, and everything works perfectly, fast, etc. Then a day or two later, I will be working in the catalog (all in Library mode) and every photo shows "Loading". I have tried optimizing catalog, rebuilding the previews. Nothing helps. 

I have a catalog of a client with only 436 previews...1:1 have been built (twice). I optimized a catalog and have been going through them in Library mode. Every preview shows "loading" with a half second or second delay. Then when I open up the second screen, it loads sharp, then changes to blurry, then goes back to sharp...takes a second or two to get final sharp photo.

What is going on??? Any ideas? I have a Mac Pro 8 core, 14GB Ram, Leopard 1'.5.8...[/color]


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jul 7, 2010)

Not a satisfactory answer for you, but ....

This behavior has been reported during the beta program as well. Here's what seems to be going on. The sluggish behavior you're noting seems to be the Lr standard level of performance following a PC cold boot. Both Mac and Win OSs incorporate drive caching in their h/w and s/w subsystems. Once the folder/files you're working with are resident in the cache, performance improves. 

The Lr team is aware of these issues, and I presume they're hot on the trail. In the meantime, I don't believe there's a lot you can do.


----------



## Mary Ann (Jul 7, 2010)

Thanks for the info, Brad...hopefully this will be fixed soon, because this is a huge step back from LR2. I was so excited when I first started using it because it was so much faster, but that went away quickly.


----------



## BobT (Jul 8, 2010)

[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=1'35'.msg69957#msg69957 date=1278517463]
Not a satisfactory answer for you, but ....

This behavior has been reported during the beta program as well. Here's what seems to be going on. The sluggish behavior you're noting seems to be the Lr standard level of performance following a PC cold boot. Both Mac and Win OSs incorporate drive caching in their h/w and s/w subsystems. Once the folder/files you're working with are resident in the cache, performance improves. 

The Lr team is aware of these issues, and I presume they're hot on the trail. In the meantime, I don't believe there's a lot you can do.
[/quote]My PC running XP is also painfully slow compared to when I had LR2.7. Are you suggesting we leave LR3 to "warm up" so to speak to give it time to cache the necessary stuff?


----------



## Brad Snyder (Jul 8, 2010)

Not exactly. What has to happen is that all of the working Lr files, catalog, previews, original images, need to be cycled in from the hard-disk. Currently, the only way to accomplish this, is to continue working with all your files, and if possible leave Lr (and your PC) running.

BobT, on a side note, I ran a PC with your quoted specs for quite some time, and I have to say its Lr performance was marginal at best, even with 2.x. (I'm not disrespecting your system  , just noting my unsatisfactory experience with a very similar set-up)


----------



## BobT (Jul 9, 2010)

Thanks Brad. Yeh, I know I'm up for a better system, 64bit etc. but I'm thinking of having RAID5 built in as well so it might be while till I sort it out.


----------



## ukbrown (Jul 9, 2010)

RAID 5 is not the optimum disk configuration if you are after pure speed.


----------



## jpc (Jul 23, 2010)

I'm also having a "slowness" problem, but it's not random. It's directly related to the adjustment brush. The more changes I make to an image using the brush, the more sluggish Lr becomes. It eventually gets so slow that the brush doesn't work at all and it can take from 5-1' sec to zoom in and out from 1:1 to full. I had the same problem with 2.x until an update fixed it. I did not have this issue with 2.7 and now it's back in 3.'. It sounds similar to Mary Ann's problem and I posted in another thread in which the OP was having this same issue when using the gradient filter. It's very frustrating to see this problem again, especially if it was a known issue with the 3.' beta.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jul 23, 2010)

Mary, how big is your Camera Raw Cache ? I have set mine to 5'GB and it can help.

When you are rating or just viewing your images in the Library module, that should use the 1:1 previews when you zoom in to 1''%. In the Develop module the image is always built from scratch and you will see a 'loading' overlay for a second or two.


----------



## jpc (Jul 23, 2010)

Right. A second or two for the "loading" overlay in the Develop module is normal. 3' seconds is what I'm getting when trying to load an image that has "brushing". I realize Mary Ann's issue was more with the Library module, but they sound related.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jul 23, 2010)

The more edits to an image the longer it will take to render. I find lots of brush strokes can make the rendering slow. I think this is an area where we will see some improvements in a later release.


----------



## jpc (Jul 23, 2010)

There _was _an improvement - in 2.x when they _fixed this_. Again, I could brush 'til my heart's content in 2.7 and there was only a slight delay in rendering; maybe a second. What we're talking about here is being absolutely dead in the water. It does seem to be a cumulative effect, getting worse as I lay down more strokes, and eventually everything is frozen and useless.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Jul 23, 2010)

Also, brushes get slower with lens corrections. If you've got them enabled, try turning them off while you're working, then turn them back on when you're done brushing.


----------



## jpc (Jul 23, 2010)

That's good info, thanks. In this case there were no lens corrections enabled.


----------



## PeterPGS (Jul 24, 2010)

[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=1'35'.msg7'84'#msg7'84' date=1279913916]
Mary, how big is your Camera Raw Cache ? I have set mine to 5'GB and it can help.
[/quote]

Where can you check this setting?
And what is the default setting? Is it depending on the normal size of your RAW files?


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jul 24, 2010)

[quote author=PeterPGS link=topic=1'35'.msg7'859#msg7'859 date=1279927691]
[quote author=sizzlingbadger link=topic=1'35'.msg7'84'#msg7'84' date=1279913916]
Mary, how big is your Camera Raw Cache ? I have set mine to 5'GB and it can help.
[/quote]

Where can you check this setting?
And what is the default setting? Is it depending on the normal size of your RAW files?
[/quote]

Go to Preferences, File Handling tab. At the bottom of that dialog you see Camera Raw Cache Settings, which show you the size and location of your ACR Cache.

And yes, size of these cached results is - AFAIK - dependant on image size.

Beat


----------



## PeterPGS (Jul 24, 2010)

Thanks Beat, never noticed that one before. 
My biggest RAW files are about 1'GB so I will set it to 15GB and it should be fine.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Jul 24, 2010)

Peter,

You might be mixing up units of measurement here:
Your biggest RAWs will probably be 1'-15 MB each. The ACR cache holds pre-rendered data of your most recent edits, and the bigger it is the more of your recent work will be stored there. You specify it's size in GB. Set it to as large as you can afford (you can set it to any drive you have), 5'GB is a good size.

Beat


----------



## PeterPGS (Jul 24, 2010)

Woops, must have been asleep already! 
Ok, thanks again, Beat, I will set it to 5'GB. That's no problem on the current location. It was 1GB BTW.


----------



## Braders (Aug 14, 2010)

mmm...does a small size have a potential affect. ie: i see mine is only 1GB?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Aug 15, 2010)

Brad -- the Camera Raw cache is read when you select a photo in Develop, when you Export, or when you Print (except draft mode). The cache holds partially-rendered files; if a file isn't in the cache, then LR or Camera Raw will go to the original file on disk, partially render it (demosaic, etc.) and then store the partially-rendered data for future use. When it does that, if the cache is full, then the oldest file in the cache will be purged.

You can look at how many files are held in the cache by looking at the folder on disk. I just emptied mine then pulled one file up in Develop, and the cache file for it is 5 MB (it's a D7'', 12 megapixels.) So a 1GB cache would hold about 2'' files. If you are regularly working with more files than that, then you'd want to raise the size of your cache. Of course, if your raw files are much bigger, then it'll be fewer files per gigabyte.


----------



## Braders (Aug 15, 2010)

[quote author=Mark Sirota link=topic=1'35'.msg72159#msg72159 date=1281834367]
Brad -- the Camera Raw cache is read when you select a photo in Develop, when you Export, or when you Print (except draft mode). The cache holds partially-rendered files; if a file isn't in the cache, then LR or Camera Raw will go to the original file on disk, partially render it (demosaic, etc.) and then store the partially-rendered data for future use. When it does that, if the cache is full, then the oldest file in the cache will be purged.

You can look at how many files are held in the cache by looking at the folder on disk. I just emptied mine then pulled one file up in Develop, and the cache file for it is 5 MB (it's a D7'', 12 megapixels.) So a 1GB cache would hold about 2'' files. If you are regularly working with more files than that, then you'd want to raise the size of your cache. Of course, if your raw files are much bigger, then it'll be fewer files per gigabyte.
[/quote]


If one has say a 1Gb allowance and tends to use more than 2'' files at 5mb each, then the continual purging and replacing on the fly would slow things down?
Thus, allowing a greater maximum will prevent this?


----------



## Mark Sirota (Aug 15, 2010)

It will slow some things down, yes. You'd see it when you switch to a file in Develop that you haven't looked at in 2'' files, or when you try to export or print files that you haven't looked at in 2'' files.

To determine how long (in wallclock time) that takes, look in your Camera Raw cache folder. Sort by date, then check the date of the oldest file.

I set my cache to 4GB, which is good for about 8'' files. At the moment the oldest is a few weeks old.


----------



## jpc (Sep 7, 2010)

[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=1'35'.msg69957#msg69957 date=1278517463]
Not a satisfactory answer for you, but ....

This behavior has been reported during the beta program as well. Here's what seems to be going on. The sluggish behavior you're noting seems to be the Lr standard level of performance following a PC cold boot. Both Mac and Win OSs incorporate drive caching in their h/w and s/w subsystems. Once the folder/files you're working with are resident in the cache, performance improves. 

The Lr team is aware of these issues, and I presume they're hot on the trail. In the meantime, I don't believe there's a lot you can do.
[/quote]

Does anyone know if this issue was addressed in 3.2? I haven't seen any improvement since updating. If anything, it's worse.


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 7, 2010)

you need to analyse what is causing LR to run slowly. Check out Task Manager what is commit size peak for your memory. Look at the process tab in task manager and show processes from all users, what is taking up all the cpu. After that on XP you need to head into the realms of perfmon to see what is going on under the hood.


----------



## Mary Ann (Jul 7, 2010)

[color=#''33'']I am so FRUSTRATED. I am having so many random slowness issues. I will build a catalog, build the 1:1 previews, and everything works perfectly, fast, etc. Then a day or two later, I will be working in the catalog (all in Library mode) and every photo shows "Loading". I have tried optimizing catalog, rebuilding the previews. Nothing helps. 

I have a catalog of a client with only 436 previews...1:1 have been built (twice). I optimized a catalog and have been going through them in Library mode. Every preview shows "loading" with a half second or second delay. Then when I open up the second screen, it loads sharp, then changes to blurry, then goes back to sharp...takes a second or two to get final sharp photo.

What is going on??? Any ideas? I have a Mac Pro 8 core, 14GB Ram, Leopard 1'.5.8...[/color]


----------



## jpc (Sep 7, 2010)

This is a known issue which is why I replied to this thread and quoted Brad, rather than starting a new one. I would like to know if this issue was addressed in 3.2 before re-hashing all of the symptoms. If you read this entire thread, you'll see that there has already been detailed discussion regarding the "slowness".


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 7, 2010)

[quote author=jpc link=topic=1'35'.msg73732#msg73732 date=12838772'2]
Does anyone know if this issue was addressed in 3.2? I haven't seen any improvement since updating. If anything, it's worse.
[/quote]

Since updating to the final release or the RC? Where are you still seeing the slowness, because yes, most of it was addressed in the final release.


----------



## jpc (Sep 7, 2010)

Since updating to the final release of 3.2. So the issue that Brad alluded to has been resolved?


----------



## jpc (Sep 7, 2010)

Sorry, to answer your other question.. The slowness is occurring when I click a thumbnail and it's primarily in the Develop module, with images that contain gradients or adjustment brushing. The image takes forever to "load" even if I've just rendered a 1:1 preview and haven't made any changes since. 

There's a similar thread here: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/index.php?topic=1'498.'


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Sep 7, 2010)

The 1:1 preview isn't used in Develop module. That uses raw data - or partially processed raw data from the ACR Cache - and applies all of your adjustments to that raw data. You can help it out a big by enlarging the size of the ACR cache in preferences, so that it holds more files in a partially processed state, but that's largely down to processing power, particularly when the new noise reduction and/or lens corrections are used.


----------



## jpc (Sep 7, 2010)

Maybe my ACR Cache got reset when I updated to 3.2. I'll check tonight. What about the "cold boot" slowness issue that Brad mentioned? Has that particular issue been fixed in 3.2? I'd like to rule it out.


----------



## Brad Snyder (Sep 8, 2010)

I believe that the specific problem I discussed was at least worked on for 3.2. IIRC there were some tradeoffs, robbing Peter to pay Paul, kind of issues to address. Unfortunately for this discussion, (fortunately for me), I wasn't seeing very much of this problem to begin with, so I can't really offer intelligent commentary on any improvements. I've lost track of where I encountered the original discussion on the topic. I do recall a handful of adamant complainers (maybe there's a politer word), who seem to have disappeared.


----------



## jpc (Sep 8, 2010)

ACR Cache is still set to 5' GB. I'll post back if I come up with anything that might be useful. It might just be that rendering in 3.x is slower and the gradient filter and adjustment brushes are resource hogs. Makes me wonder if I really want Nikon to get over their 12MP hurdle. 

Thanks


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 8, 2010)

@jpc 





> This is a known issue which is why I replied to this thread and quoted Brad, rather than starting a new one.



Sorry thought you had applied the fix to the known issue and you still had a problem. If you want to know what your issue is you may need to look deeper at your PC setup.


----------



## jpc (Sep 8, 2010)

No sweat. I appreciate your advice. I still don't know if the "cold-boot" slowness was fixed. It would be nice to rule that out before digging deeper. I do know that my quad-core rig was a rocket ship before 3.'.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Sep 8, 2010)

The cold boot slowness can't be fixed. It's just the way computers work. Things get faster after data gets cached; it's slower to read from disk than to read from cache.


----------



## jpc (Sep 8, 2010)

Well that also makes sense, but that means that Adobe is trying to fix something that can't be fixed. So, no matter how large I make my ACR cache, it empties every time I shut down and has to fill back up with xmp data as I select images. Is that right, or is does LR automatically fill the ACR cache back up with the data that was there when I shut down, without having to re-select the images?


----------



## clee01l (Sep 8, 2010)

[quote author=jpc link=topic=1'35'.msg73794#msg73794 date=1283953372]
...I do know that my quad-core rig was a rocket ship before 3.'. 
[/quote]No one running an ancient operating system (XP) should try to lay claim to 'rocket ship' performance. I would suggest that if you upgrade your OS to Win7-64 (or 32) that you won't find any complaints with LR. 

"Random Slowness" suggests background tasks sucking up CPU cycles. LR wants a lot of RAM and if you only have 3 GB to pass around, other background tasks are going to be stealing RAM that LR needs and Memory swapping begins. If you have other active background tasks (Like a virus Scanner). these programs begin competing for the active RAM and the system slows. Vista and Win7 are much improved at memory managment over XP. Not only that, either OS can use all 4GB RAM (and more) which XP can not do.


----------



## jpc (Sep 8, 2010)

Sorry to offend, but it's the fastest system I've ever owned and by comparison to the current LR performance, it was a rocket ship. I'm trying to compare apples-to-apples here. The only variable is the LR update to 3.' and now 3.2. 2.x was considerably faster than 3.' without any change in hardware or other software. I'm happy to accept that LR 3.x simply uses more resources than 2.x. If that's the case, fine. I'm just trying to rule out other issues that could have been introduced by 3.x and in the process better understand how LR uses the cache.


----------



## Mark Sirota (Sep 8, 2010)

[quote author=jpc link=topic=1'35'.msg73797#msg73797 date=1283954744]
So, no matter how large I make my ACR cache, it empties every time I shut down and has to fill back up with xmp data as I select images. Is that right, or is does LR automatically fill the ACR cache back up with the data that was there when I shut down, without having to re-select the images?[/quote]

No, that's not right. The Camera Raw cache doesn't empty when you reboot.

The cache that empties when you reboot in the operating system's filesystem cache, which lives in RAM. When you read a file from disk (any file, not just Lightroom) it gets read from the disk into the operating system's cache, one page at a time. So long as that page remains unmodified, it can then be read from the cache rather than from the disk itself. Of course, the cache is only so big, so pages which haven't been read in a while will eventually be overwritten by more recently accessed pages.

This cache is at a lower level than the Camera Raw cache. To the operating system, the Camera Raw cache is just like any other set of files.


----------



## jpc (Sep 8, 2010)

So ACR cache actually lives on hard disk. Is it written to RAM as I select images, or is the entire cache written to RAM when I open LR? Thanks for your patience with this. If you have a link that explains how LR uses its cache, I'm happy to read it and torture you no more


----------



## Mark Sirota (Sep 8, 2010)

[quote author=jpc link=topic=1'35'.msg738'6#msg738'6 date=1283962'87]
So ACR cache actually lives on hard disk. Is it written to RAM as I select images, or is the entire cache written to RAM when I open LR?[/quote]
Yes, it's on disk. You can look at it yourself -- find the location in Preferences, File Handling tab.

The files in that folder are partially-rendered versions of your most recently edited work (in LR's Develop module, or in Camera Raw). If you shoot raw, these are demosaiced and have a little bit of other stuff done, but they are not actually image files.

Whenever you invoke LR or Camera Raw's rendering pipeline (by entering Develop, rendering previews, exporting, printing (except draft mode), etc.) these files are read from the Camera Raw cache. If the file isn't in the Camera Raw cache already, then the original file is read from disk, partially processed, and stored in the Camera Raw cache.

When I say "the files are read from the Camera Raw cache", there's a considerable amount of heavy lifting performed by the operating system. When any application wants to read a file, what it actually does is ask the operating system for the contents of the file.

What the operating system does is looks in its own cache, which is stored in RAM, for the portion of the file (called a page) that is being requested. If the page is not in the cache, then the operating system will read the page from the disk and store it in the cache, then hand it back to the application.

So there are two caches between the Develop module and the disk -- the Camera Raw cache, which is controlled by Lightroom and is stored on disk, and the filesystem cache which is controlled by the operating system and is stored in RAM.

Because the filesystem cache is stored in volatile memory, it is lost when the machine is shut down. So when you fire it up again, files in the camera raw cache will always have to be read from disk (the first time, at least) which is much much much much much slower than reading from RAM.


----------



## jpc (Sep 8, 2010)

That's an excellent explanation, Mark. I really appreciate you taking the time to write it. This should help me to better diagnose what's happening.


----------



## Gi (Sep 13, 2010)

I've found that turning off the lens correction speeds up the adjustment brush. Give it a try.


----------



## ukbrown (Sep 13, 2010)

@gi, agreed but probably not in Library mode



> I am so FRUSTRATED. I am having so many random slowness issues. I will build a catalog, build the 1:1 previews, and everything works perfectly, fast, etc. Then a day or two later, I will be working in the catalog (all in Library mode) and every photo shows "Loading". I have tried optimizing catalog, rebuilding the previews. Nothing helps.


----------

