# LR4 on SSD: SATA2 -> SATA3 worth it? Mac Pro user.



## Selwin (Nov 18, 2012)

Hi everyone,

I have a Mac Pro 2010 (5,1), Quad core 2.8GHz, 16GB RAM. Base model with just the RAM upgrade. I heard that LR catalogs really fly on SSD's, because they're so fast with small I/O that are typical for LR.

So my mind is set on an SSD to run my catalog on and to use as scratch disk for Photoshop CS5. However, using the SATA2 bays on my Mac Pro won't unleash the full 6Gb/s (or 600 MB/s) that modern SATA3 SSD's are capable of. I can't seem to find out if upgrading to SATA3 (by means of a good PCIe card) will make the LR catalog much faster than just using SATA2.

I would be very interested to hear from you guys, especially if you upgraded to SATA3 for your SSD's. Does it speed LR up significantly vs SSD on SATA2?

Thanks.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Nov 19, 2012)

Hi Selwin,

I just got a flyer from Other World Computing (aka www.macsales.com) and they are offering a very interesting SSD option, a SSD as part of a PCIe card. This eliminates bottleneck of working through the SATA interface. I don't know how easy it would be for you to purchase in The Netherlands but  it is an intriguing option for maximizing disk I/O.

-louie


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 19, 2012)

That's an interesting option Louie.  I've ordered from OWC to here in the UK and the purchase and shipping was quite simple.  Their SSD's have been trouble free too.  Could be worth considering.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 20, 2012)

Hi Louie and Victoria,
Thanks for your reply! Louie, you're probably  referring to the Accelsior range.  http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDPHW2R120/ If so, yes they look  very appealing, but the price less so. It's about $500 for a 240GB  solution or $319 for 120GB. 
It is my understanding that a LR catalog doesn't involve handling large files, just hundreds of small files in a short time and seek time is most important. A "standard" SSD connected to a SATA2 port might do just as good. That's what I'm trying to find out.

For about 95 Euro's I can get a single 128GB  Samsung 830 (already got one of those in my 2006 Macbook Pro). If this is just as good, why spend so much money? I'm looking for first hand  experience from LR users.


----------



## Selwin (Nov 26, 2012)

Not many LR SSD users here apparently. OSX or Win is equally interesting to me. 
Because I need more than 128 GB (OSX, several LR catalogs and space for PS scratch disk = 180 GB) I'm leaning towards a 240GB Accelsior. Why? Because it's supposed to be the ultimate in speed (appealing) and compared to a 256GB Samsung 830 it's "only" 200 Euro's more.
Anyone using an Accelsior for LR?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 26, 2012)

I use SSD's - I just don't know whether PCI will help or not.

I guess the question is what you're hoping to speed up.  Catalog access will be quicker, but how much is limited by drive speed?  The tests here show it helps, but it's not a vast improvement, which makes me think that there are limited gains to be had.


----------



## mulligan (Nov 26, 2012)

I use an OCZ Agility3 SSD on a Mac Pro 1.1 (2006) duel core and only noticed a slight speed change in LR


----------



## Selwin (Dec 1, 2012)

OK I ordered a 240GB Accelsior from OWC today, along with a 120GB Mercury Extreme 6G On-The_go (USB3 connection). I just had to know. 
- I'll connect the external SSD via a Caldigit USB3 PCIe card. 
- Images (RAW files) will remain on an internal striped RAID hard drive
I will try different configurations (OSX on Accelsior/External, LR4.2 catalog on Accelsior/External, ACR cache etc. and report back here (if anyone is interested in this anyway). I expect delivery by the end of next week.

I used Blackmagic disk speed test for a range of drives I have now.
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000155 EndHTML:0000006612 StartFragment:0000000475 EndFragment:0000006595     	 	 	 	 	 	    
Disk Speed Test1GBWriteRead*Mac Pro 5,1 (2010)**2.8GHz 16GB RAM*Seagate1TB-DataFW80063,677,3MasterInternal 7200RAID0180170MirrorInternal 7200RAID16760ArchivesInternal 72009896BootInternal 7200130126ScratchInternal 7200120120Seagate1TB-BootFW8006475Seagate1TB-TMFW8006373Onetouch-DataFW4002835Onetouch-BootFW4002836*Macbook 5,1 (Late 2008)**2GHz 4GBRAM*MB-BootInternal 54004344MB-MasterInternal 54004444MB-SpareInternal 54004040Mxt300GB2-MB ImageUSB22332*Macbook Pro 2,1 (Late 2006)**2.33GHz 3GB RAM*BootSSDSamsung 830124131MBP-DataSSDSamsung 830125131AE WB1TB-DataUSB2Airport Extreme1716ch3snas Volume_1NAS1616


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 1, 2012)

Selwin said:


> and report back here (if anyone is interested in this anyway)


Yes please!


----------



## ukbrown (Dec 1, 2012)

I'll be interested if you can do a meaningful benchmark for LR that show the amount of improvement SSD gives.

People at work go on and on about SSD's Excel loads really quick, word loads really quick etc.  Great, Excel loads in 2s instead of 20s, they spend all day in excel do spreadsheet work so they got back 18s.  WOW.  Impressed, only by their stupidity.


----------



## Selwin (Dec 1, 2012)

ukbrown said:


> I'll be interested if you can do a meaningful benchmark for LR that show the amount of improvement SSD gives.


Well yes that is a challenge. Most of it will be subjective I guess. I don't care much how fast LR loads, I care how fluently I can jump between images, switch between Library and Develop and how fast I can search for images in my 50000+ image catalogs. That is where the real energy saving lies.


----------



## ukbrown (Dec 2, 2012)

Yep and that's what we all really need to know on this forum, how much it improves the usabilty of LR in a non subjective manner.  You could go through 1000 photos in develop only move onto the next one when the loading message has dissappeared.  Three runs just to eliminate caching and LR optimisations.


----------



## Selwin (Dec 2, 2012)

ukbrown said:


> Yep and that's what we all really need to know on this forum, how much it improves the usabilty of LR in a non subjective manner.  You could go through 1000 photos in develop only move onto the next one when the loading message has dissappeared.  Three runs just to eliminate caching and LR optimisations.



I won't do a thousand as I have better things to do with my time (ie taking pictures) but if you have specific test setup wishes then by all means, list them here and if it won't take too much of my time I will do it for you. I listed my hard drives above and I'm willing to put my catalog on any of them and do some quick tests. I also have various catalogs containing different amounts of images (the biggest one is 50000).

I heard of someone who used a script of some sort to go through a large number of images and automatically move on to the next one as soon as the "loading" message disappears. If someone delivers such a script to me with clear instructions I can do a 1000 images.

I've had lot's of help from this forum so this may be a good time to return favour.


----------



## Selwin (Dec 23, 2012)

So running LR4.2 off the Accelsior SSD makes a huge difference as  opposed to running it from an internal SATA2 hard drive. I would not  want to go back. Browsing through my library is so much smoother, as is  searching for images. It's amazing how much difference just the drive  can make where the rest of the important components like processor and  RAM remain unchanged. If you have any special requests please let us  hear 'm. Again, if it doesn't eat away too much of my time I'll do it  for you.


----------



## ukbrown (Dec 23, 2012)

If my set up is "typical" the above faster functions don't' really matter too much to me and as you didn't mention develop, then I presume performance here is similar????????


----------



## Selwin (Dec 23, 2012)

I haven't tested the develop module yet. It feels smoother when fiddling  around with the sliders but not anything conclusive yet. I could make a  screen capture (movie) while doing my typical workflow: library  (import, select and keywording) -> develop -> Print. And then make  a similar movie with the catalog residing on a hard drive. If that  would be of any help to you. Please note that the size of the RAW files  matters a lot. I am using 5D and 5DmkII cameras, so tell me which of  those comes closest to your RAW file size. For ukbrown I suppose the 5DmkII files come closest. 
If you're not really interested just say so and that's fine too.


----------



## ukbrown (Dec 23, 2012)

Not for me, it's the scripted timings that you need, to be accurate.  Nothing on my installed version of LR lags particularly, so as jerry used to say "good enough is good enough".


----------

