# LR Release 3.4 - Speed Performance Issues????



## HDRoamer (Mar 11, 2011)

Hi All,
I'm failing to read in the release notes for 3.4RC where they have specifically addressed any issue of slowness or speed performance. This seems to be a real big issue and well documented in any forum.

*Does anyone have first hand info this is being listened to or addressed?*
*Has anyone that has tried 3.4 had any speed resolution?*

I've just spent days trying to ensure my system is up to par by tuning and tweaking to maximize system resources to bring back any reasonable usage for LR. Not much result.

When I first started using LR it was great. Now with 2300 plus images, I wait and wait and wait for the simplest of commands.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## RikkFlohr (Mar 11, 2011)

I would ask what those simplest of commands might be. I have around 150,000 images and am not seeing slowdowns.  

If your user profile is accurate, your system doesn't meet Lightroom's minimum published specs. You are short a half-gig of RAM. I suspect that may be part of your issue. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/systemreqs/


----------



## HDRoamer (Mar 11, 2011)

Just about anything... Launching takes 5 mins or more before the CPU settles down, Switching from Lib to Dev is real bad then I get to wait for the CPU again, clone has a serious wait too. If I move a sharpen or noise slider the refresh takes awhile.

I have machine with 2gb mem dual core pent. too. Same issue. Granted they are old but still accomplish a lot and I can't afford a new system right now.
Lots of other memory and CPU intensive software runs fine on either.

The forums show plenty of people have no issues, while many people that do have the same trouble and they have some very powerful machines.

Sorry... not here to debate my PC. Just looking for info that many people have real issues with.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 13, 2011)

Ok how about trying some troubleshooting then,to narrow down where the problem is occurring. First things first, if you create a new catalog (file menu > new catalog) just for brief testing, not ongoing use, does that go quicker?

Also, when you first started using LR, which version was that? LR is pretty resource intensive, with some tools more so than others, so you may simply be asking too much of your hardware, but still, it's worth investigating as we may be able to find a compromise for you.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Mar 14, 2011)

Hi Dave,

There is an insanely long thread over on the Adobe Forums (400 replies and growing) regarding performance, Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback. You may be able to find some possible solutions there.

-louie


----------



## HDRoamer (Mar 15, 2011)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Ok how about trying some troubleshooting then,to narrow down where the problem is occurring. First things first, if you create a new catalog (file menu > new catalog) just for brief testing, not ongoing use, does that go quicker?
> 
> Also, when you first started using LR, which version was that? LR is pretty resource intensive, with some tools more so than others, so you may simply be asking too much of your hardware, but still, it's worth investigating as we may be able to find a compromise for you.



Victoria - Thank you for the suggestions. I started with V3.? and now 3.3. The more I used it, the worse it got. I've tried some trouble shooting, including a new catalog with minimal results. Any improvement seems temporary with more use. I have found your "Hurry up Lightroom! The best speed tips!" article and will try a few more things to tune up my LR settings and report back.

Observation: After 11 years in software development including QA and deployment project management, I smell 'bloat'. Meaning there is probably many issues including old or bad code contributing to the symptoms, proof as witnessed by many because of the variations in reported problems in various forum threads. A good database should be able to find what it needs, when it needs it, then put the data away for later use releasing memory, user objects, CPU, processes and other behind the scenes resources. LR seems to bloat up when used evident by increasing CPU and memory levels. I could go on and on with examples and reports of slowness, but it would only amount to more piss on our own shoes.
re: Louie's comment below.

(Does anyone know what "Switchboard" is? And why its code is still present, including a port setting, humm... if no longer used.) Adobe reports it as an abandoned project and no longer used, yet it's settings and some code can be found in LR's file structure.

I praise the efforts of you and many others in this community to help us all. As a user base I feel our primary focus would be to help each other leverage the software's capabilities through experience and education. Unfortunately many of us have had to take on other technical roles as a matter of survival. 

Again Victoria, I appreciate your passion and help towards Lightroom.
Dave


LouieSherwin said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> There is an insanely long thread over on the Adobe Forums (400 replies and growing) regarding performance, Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback. You may be able to find some possible solutions there.
> 
> -louie



Hi Louie,
Yes it is insanely long as others and full of cries for relief. There are a few others insanely long too. Not many permanent solutions there, rather shots in the dark in hopes something works, and more cries for relief.

I also have observed that - Mr. Dan Tull I assume from Adobe, does surface here and there in forums, taking notice of things maybe missed in 3.4RC. I hope his efforts are not squelched by others on his team.

Dan Tull did report (one small step):
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/760245?start=350&tstart=0

"Re: Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

Though the release notes do not reflect it, 3.4 RC has a fix for this bug. The registry calls themselves from the time zone API were not terribly expensive and I wasn't able to reproduce any big slowdowns, but we did find some unnecessary work being done in the mouse move handler that fits the symptoms described.

I don't know if folks are still watching this thread, but I figured I'd reply to it for the record and all.
DT"

Note: Others are starting to report there is no relief for performance in 3.4RC

Thanks Louie,
Dave


----------



## rjalex (Mar 15, 2011)

Dave I understand you are a knowledgeable IT person so please bear with me. Are you running a memory, CPU and I/O monitor ? I had a machine with specs similar to yours and the memory was by far the single bottleneck. Went up to 6 GB (of course a 64 bit OS Win 7) and even a 4 year old dual core at 2.6 GB with 2 7200 rpm HDD was acceptable. This speaking about LR ONLY, if I launched Photoshop CS4 as an external editor the only thing I could do is get a flame thrower and burn down the damned thing  As per the "powerful machines" having problems you know sometimes the devil is in the details  I heard a guy loudly complaining that going to 16GB did not help at all only to discover after a lot of questions he was running 32bit XP 
Good luck, Bob
PS Now am on a well equipped iMac and some operations are even TOO fast !


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 16, 2011)

Ok, let's go a bit further with the troubleshooting then.

When you tried the new catalog, what were the photos that you imported into it?  And what did you do to the photos?  (Don't worry, not saying you're doing anything wrong, just trying to find your bottleneck!!)

Have you tried trashing preferences at any time?  Corrupted prefs can cause weird issues.

Are previews all rendered?  Have you tried rebuilding previews from scratch anywhere in your troubleshooting?

Some things are pretty processor intensive - lens corrections, noise reduction, spot removal, brush and gradients.  How do you get on without using those?

Where are the files stored - internal or external drives?  And the catalog itself?


----------



## HDRoamer (Mar 18, 2011)

rjalex said:


> Dave I understand you are a knowledgeable IT person so please bear with me. Are you running a memory, CPU and I/O monitor ? I had a machine with specs similar to yours and the memory was by far the single bottleneck. Went up to 6 GB (of course a 64 bit OS Win 7) and even a 4 year old dual core at 2.6 GB with 2 7200 rpm HDD was acceptable. This speaking about LR ONLY, if I launched Photoshop CS4 as an external editor the only thing I could do is get a flame thrower and burn down the damned thing  As per the "powerful machines" having problems you know sometimes the devil is in the details  I heard a guy loudly complaining that going to 16GB did not help at all only to discover after a lot of questions he was running 32bit XP
> Good luck, Bob
> PS Now am on a well equipped iMac and some operations are even TOO fast !



Hey Bob , Your points are well taken. A new PC or MAC is inevitable but not now.
Performance Monitor - Yes! CPU spikes and hangs, while memory is not maxed out, I/Os read as more action than anything else, high number of page faults stack up. Other resources and services are contained to a minimum. Virus software is either terminated or folders excluded (little diff)
For now I'm revisiting some things I've done and trying some nuances Victoria is pointing out.




Victoria Bampton said:


> Ok, let's go a bit further with the troubleshooting then.
> 
> When you tried the new catalog, what were the photos that you imported into it?  And what did you do to the photos?  (Don't worry, not saying you're doing anything wrong, just trying to find your bottleneck!!)
> Canon RAW, 18mp. Crop, lens correction, clone, sharpening, noise, some exposure and other sliders. Cloning is a bugger (noticable wait time here).
> ...


My comments in blue text above.
Victoria, Thanks again for the coaching to help me find some relief and compensation for my antiquated hardware and OS. I love what LR does, when it does it. Still think it needs a bit of architectural tuning by the LR dev team.

Question: Has the software architecture ever been disclosed to anyone on the outside beside SDK programmers? And tweaks recommended by Adobe or are members here just figuring these things out?

I'm use to having a real DB running like a service like MSSQL, Oracle, or MYSQL and understand what it does. All I see is a folder system and some *.db files. Maybe it is time Adobe leverages something like a true DB engine if it is not present now. Makes my head itch wondering :hm:, ha ha.

Dave


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 18, 2011)

You are seeing high page faults (hence high I/O also), this is due to lack of memory. Your system may show free ram but its killing itself trying to maintain some free space.

I would upgrade to Win 7 and 4GB Ram if I couldn't upgrade the hardware. XP is pretty long in the tooth now and it struggles to handle larger memory structures efficiently. I think everyone I know that has moved from XP (Vista) to Win 7 have seen improvements in performance management.

I'm a senior Oracle DBA (14 years) working on banking systems on Linux, Solaris and IBM mainframes. The fact that sqlite doesn't run as a service on Windows is not an issue (its only accessed by a single user and you have to be authenticated [logged in] to use Lightroom anyway). It doesn't make it any less 'true' in database terms.

The performance issues you are seeing are related to the ACR engine  (most are) and not the database. ACR has an incredible amount of work to do when it processes a raw image and this takes a lot of cpu and memory. It has to do this every time you look at an image in the develop module, it doesn't make use of a saved preview  (only in the other modules). This means flicking through images in the dev module requires a lot of resources.

Myself and a few others feel that Adobe's minimum specs for running Lightroom are not realistic in the real world. I would suggest a minimum of 4GB ram especially if using 16MP raw files.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 21, 2011)

From what you've said Dave, I think the problems you're seeing are due to the low hardware specs, sorry.  The minimum system specs allow it to walk, more than run.  It'd handle small files and basic corrections at those specs, but some of the newer processing taxes higher end systems with those files.  

Your load times probably aren't helped by the external drive being slightly slower than internal, but primarily you're seeing a lack of RAM and processing power.  As I see it, you've got a few choices:

1.  Put up with the slow performance
2.  Use less processor intensive functions - don't use the new noise reduction, lens corrections, spot removal, local adjustments - or at least leave those until last, as they are going to tax your computer, especially the lens corrections
3.  Buy a new computer


----------



## dldeuce (Apr 7, 2011)

I see the OP hasn't followed up in this thread, but I find myself in the same situation, with only 1GB memory.  I have an older PC with AMD 3800+ dual core processor, 1GB memory, 250GB sata drive running XP.  I downloaded a trial of Lightroom, and I was very disappointed to see just how badly it performed.  I've been looking at upgrading my PC to a later model, but I'd be very very disappointed to layout the cash for a new PC, with Lightroom being a primary driver, and find out I'm still very disappointed with the performance.  I'm happy to eval the software, but I don't want to spend $1500 to eval it.

Even if I buy a new PC, I'll still use the current one for other purposes, which outside of Lightroom still performs pretty dang good for everything else I want to do.  I could afford a few upgrades on the old PC to drag it along a bit farther into the future.  I'll try to upgrade the memory to 4GB tonight.  I have a 80GB sata drive in my hand  I'll use as a second drive.  That will get my photos and catalog off a USB 2.0 drive, and I'll have a couple of drives to work with.  Although I don't really want to, I might consider upgrading to Windows 7.  

I'm hoping I'll see some improvement at least to allow me to give this trial a go.  While I work on the upgrades, any comments on how satisfied I'll be with the performance of this program with a current PC with high end on processor, memory, and drives would be appreciated.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 7, 2011)

Welcome to the forums, dldeuce 

Just a couple of things from my side:

You are aware of the fact that your system (with 1GB of RAM) does not meet the minimal system requirements for LR, aren't you?

An XP system will only use 3.2GB of RAM overall, and max. 2GB for each application. So going to Win7 might help in this respect, but only if you can run the 64Bit edition.

I'm running LR (for sporadic use and to try things) on a 1.86GHz Notebook with 2GB of RAM, with a relatively slow 5400RpM HD, and it rather walks than runs.

Beat


----------



## tzalman (Apr 8, 2011)

I transitioned from an XP/2 GB system to Windows 7, 64 bit, i7 processor, 8 GB RAM just three days ago and I am quite pleased. Displays load quickly, about two seconds, and are redrawn after every edit nearly instantly, even with multiple brush applications and lens corrections enabled. Exporting a jpg from a fairly heavily edited file and including resizing and output sharpening takes about 6 seconds - as compared to the 26 seconds on my old computer. (The same exportation from Canon's DPP took 6 seconds before and less than 2 now.) No regrets here.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 8, 2011)

tzalman said:


> I transitioned from an XP/2 GB system to Windows 7, 64 bit, i7 processor, 8 GB RAM just three days ago and I am quite pleased.



Time to update your signature 

Beat


----------



## dldeuce (Apr 8, 2011)

b_gossweiler said:


> Welcome to the forums, dldeuce
> 
> Just a couple of things from my side:
> 
> ...


 
No, I wasn't aware of that originally.  I didn't even know how much I had at first, but I checked that pretty quickly and immediately started shopping for a new PC.  I think I learned that Lightroom spec. reading this thread.  I learned at Microcenter last night that 3GB of that old ddr 400 memory was $100.  I decided to spend that on 8GB memory for the new PC I'd already spec'd out.  I decided I "needed" the new PC with or without Lightroom!  Now I'm learning how to build a PC!  I've turned this into quite the little hobby!  Hopefully, I'll be able to give Lightroom another chance this weekend.


----------



## dldeuce (Apr 10, 2011)

I built a PC with a i7-2600 processor, 8GB of 1600 memory, a 1T SATA 3 drive and Windows 7.  After re-installing Lightroom, I had no trouble importing 450 photos, and some initial exploring of the eval.  Not everything is instant, but it's a 1000 times better than what I saw with the old PC.  The new screaming PC with a 23" Samsung LED monitor, and I can't help wonder why I waited so long to upgrade.  Not only can I run Lightroom, I can pick back up on that project to import all that 8mm video onto the computer.  That was the first application I gave up on that crushed the old PC.  I couldn't be happier.


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 10, 2011)

Time to update your forums profile to the new HW specs, dldeuce 

Beat


----------



## Braders (Apr 23, 2011)

I'm sorry for having to speak up again on this issue, but this is getting ridiculous.

LR3.3 is like 1.0 all over again.

Nothing running on my computer accept LR.
HD defraged
well over 50% HD space available
Cat optimized

Flagging images in grid view results in this CPU usage.....really!


----------



## ukbrown (Apr 23, 2011)

lightroom.exe is that 00 column the CPU it is consuming on your graphic ??


----------



## ukbrown (Apr 23, 2011)

what actually takes all the cpu, same view just sort it to show all processes form all users and highest cpu at the top


----------



## Braders (Apr 23, 2011)

ukbrown said:


> lightroom.exe is that 00 column the CPU it is consuming on your graphic ??


 
Don't follow?


----------



## Jim Wilde (Apr 23, 2011)

Brad, looking at the screenshot which you posted showing Lightrooms memory usage, I think UK was asking if the 00 in the same line was from the CPU usage column (which I suspect it was)?

Following on from that, if the CPU meter showed usage at 84%, but Lightroom was using 00%, the next question becomes: so what IS using the CPU?


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 23, 2011)

Braders said:


> Don't follow?



This is what we'd like to see, sorted by CPU and best with "Show processes from all users" checked:


Beat


----------



## Braders (Apr 24, 2011)

Actions

1.1 - at start up of LR
1.2 - choosing grid view
1.3 - changing to a collection from a folders
coleection (failed english at school!) - collections rendering thumbs
Scrolling collection - as it says.

Serious usage for bugger all action?


----------



## HDRoamer (Mar 11, 2011)

Hi All,
I'm failing to read in the release notes for 3.4RC where they have specifically addressed any issue of slowness or speed performance. This seems to be a real big issue and well documented in any forum.

*Does anyone have first hand info this is being listened to or addressed?*
*Has anyone that has tried 3.4 had any speed resolution?*

I've just spent days trying to ensure my system is up to par by tuning and tweaking to maximize system resources to bring back any reasonable usage for LR. Not much result.

When I first started using LR it was great. Now with 2300 plus images, I wait and wait and wait for the simplest of commands.

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Jason (Apr 24, 2011)

Interesting...  your LR proc say's it's using 0% of the cpu, but you show us an 84% utilized... what else aren't you showing us that is using all the cpu?

Cheers!


----------



## ukbrown (Apr 24, 2011)

beat gave you a screenshot of what works best, click on the cpu column to get highest cpu at the top and then we can see all the other processes that are near the top.

The sort of things that I would suspect are anti virus, In vista do you get the resource monitor option in the performance panel of task manager, this can also be very useful


----------



## Braders (Apr 24, 2011)

ukbrown said:


> beat gave you a screenshot of what works best, click on the cpu column to get highest cpu at the top and then we can see all the other processes that are near the top.
> 
> The sort of things that I would suspect are anti virus, In vista do you get the resource monitor option in the performance panel of task manager, this can also be very useful



The 5 screen shots i gave all show every other process in action. That's it!


----------



## ukbrown (Apr 24, 2011)

There are no system processes shown, nearly all of them are running under your user name. So I doubt if this is all the processes in action at all.  Do you get the option in vista to display processes for all users, if you do make sure you tick it and then take a screen shot.


----------



## Braders (Apr 24, 2011)

got it

on the left - at start up
on the right - module change


----------



## ukbrown (Apr 24, 2011)

nothing obvious springs out of these, well not to me anyway.  I get similar sort of CPU figures at start-up, they only last for a few seconds and then doprs back down.  To me lightroom is a very bursty app (lots of peaks but not sustained high cpu - except when exporting)

So how long does the cpu stay at these levels for?

On the left at start up LR is using a high working set, my machine startup it is only 1bout 600mb where yours is 1.3gb, do you have a lot of extras/add ins loaded?


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 25, 2011)

Brad,

Can you please indicate the Operating System specs you're running, as your profile and your signature are conflicting.

Your screen shots show that at startup, 2/3 of your CPU power is still idle, available for other processes, when switching modules still 1/3. 



ukbrown said:


> On the left at start up LR is using a high  working set, my machine startup it is only 1bout 600mb where yours is  1.3gb, do you have a lot of extras/add ins loaded?


 This is  the first thing that caught my eye. After I start LR, it runs with a  working set below 300MB, 1.3GB is a lot, although should not be a  problem on a 8GB machine. I wonder what's using all this memory in your LR though ....

In your post, you mentioned LR eating up all your CPU while flagging in Grid view. Can you please do the following:


Start LR
Open Resource Monitor (CPU Tab), best done on the second monitor
Check the Lightroom process to keep it on top
Sort by Average (this represents a 60second average of CPU consumption)
Do some flagging
Check the CPU consumption (and average) of other processes (and LR) while doing the flagging



ukbrown said:


> To me lightroom is a very bursty app (lots of peaks but not sustained high cpu - except when exporting)
> 
> So how long does the cpu stay at these levels for?


Averages in Resource Monitor will allow for peaks without disturbing the overall picture.

Beat


----------



## Braders (Apr 25, 2011)

ok, so few things i noticed.

LR is slow with rendering (nothing we didn't already know), but seems more so when working in collections.

These are isolated snapshots - do serious work with heavy sorting in the library and develop 40 images non stop - and its a different story. All of these processes get caught up upon the back of the last and it grinds to a halt pretty quick.


----------



## Braders (Apr 25, 2011)

and the last 2 processes


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 25, 2011)

Brad,

Sorry, but I don't understand what kind work you were performing (sounds like a lot of different things). If you're doing several things in parallel or quickly after each other, what your graphs show is what I would expect, but this does not bring your system to a halt.

In your original post you were refering to flagging in Grid View though, and I would suggest we stick with this issue ALONE to start with. Let's get this squared away and then let's look at other issues. Also, please sort your Resource Monitor display by Average CPU.

Beat


----------



## Braders (Apr 25, 2011)

1 flagging in folder
2 basic color and WB develop changes
3 Adjustment brush open
4 Adjustment brush in use
5 export
6 return to same folder
7 change to a collection and scroll


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 25, 2011)

OK, now it makes sense 

From what I'm seeing, there's nothing unusual about your CPU usage. None of these graphs indicate that your system should come to a halt.

The top "performers" are export and use of the adjustment brush (which is expected, spot removal would be another one). For both, the circumstances (settings) have a major influance on how much resources are consumed (i.e. resizing in export, lens correction active for adjustment brush etc.). Also, most of these actions include updating the previews, which consumes resources as well.

Do you have "Automatically write XMP" active?

By looking at things, I would say you do not have a CPU problem.

Beat


----------



## b_gossweiler (Apr 25, 2011)

Just one more word, Brad:

What you show with in the first Resource Monitor graph for flagging in your post above cannot be responsible for the CPU graph you showed in your original post. The CPU in your Resource Monitor screen shot ran at 4%, LR average at below 10%.

Beat


----------



## ukbrown (Apr 25, 2011)

http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6142_102-226185.html this refers to windows media sharing, if this is accesing disk at the same time LR is then there will be a slow down, do you use windows media player sharing at all, say to display your photos, is this looking at your drive and determining changes.

Whjat I don't understand that the average CPU for this process drops off between screen shots.


----------



## Braders (Apr 25, 2011)

ukbrown said:


> http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6142_102-226185.html this refers to windows media sharing, if this is accesing disk at the same time LR is then there will be a slow down, do you use windows media player sharing at all, say to display your photos, is this looking at your drive and determining changes.
> 
> .


 
Spot on. Yesterday,I researched this exact issue deleted it and it did make a huge difference.


----------

