HerbChong wrote:
tried it. not true unless your image files are there too.
Herb...
well Im not to bothered if I just have the current files on the fast drive and any others just stored (and backed up of course)
My LR cat File (LR3)looks like its about 600mb and the previews folder and my previews folder is about 15gb . these are on the same drive as the actual images (master copy) which is not the C: drive where the application resides.
I think when I do get round to the upgrade I will invest in an SSD drive . 64gb most likely but I may push towards a 128gb (I wish UK prices were as good as the ones you quote )
I think what shocked me most was how laggy LR4 seemed compared to LR3.
I dont need a system that's as fast a Redbull but then I would like to get out of Q3 (sorry F1 reference )
I think the upgrade will be :
i5 2500k
16gig rame (I want to know more on the 4gig ram drive thing)
64gig SSD
2tb fast(ish Sata drive)
then I will junk a few of my small drives (I may have to I think some are IDE ) and keep my 1gb SATA drive
If Im going in the wrong direction then I will happily be pointed in the right direction.
thanks for all the input. and yes as mentioned above I am pretty cost capped
By the way with the above stuff where should I put CS5 and its various components?
By the way that 64gig crucial SSD drive would cost me £75 compared to about £60 for the one in the newegg link. so I dont think thats exactly over the top (I thought it would be)
I may go for that now and see what it does . considering I will use it later.
Would I be able to get my windows installed on there as well? or is that not a good idea ( I would load all my other programs on normal disk as would all the usual crap that builds up.
That looks like a good spec, but if you are willing to wait a month or so the Ivy Bridge equivalent of the 2500K will be out. It should cost the same, be about 5% faster and will likely use a bit less power and be more overclockable.
I know what you mean about the IDE drives - i now have around 1Tb in 200's and 120s lying on a shelf.
Win 7 on 64Gb is possible, but a bit tight. I have it on an 80Gb with 20Gb free. You need to leave a good amount of the SSD empty to maximise the effectiveness of the load levelling.
well I could possibly wait on the next gen (Ivy) but maybe that would bring down the cost of the current one 5% is not to be sniffed at, but then nor is less£££
15Bit wrote:
Win 7 on 64Gb is possible, but a bit tight. I have it on an 80Gb with 20Gb free. You need to leave a good amount of the SSD empty to maximise the effectiveness of the load levelling.
is that windows alone? . that would not give me any room for the lightroom stuff . so I guess I would leave it where it is
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
By the way that 64gig crucial SSD drive would cost me £75 compared to about £60 for the one in the newegg link. so I dont think thats exactly over the top (I thought it would be)
I may go for that now and see what it does . considering I will use it later.
Would I be able to get my windows installed on there as well? or is that not a good idea ( I would load all my other programs on normal disk as would all the usual crap that builds up.
Both my system drive and "cache" drive are Crucial M4's (128 GB and 64GB). The M4's seem to get some of the best reviews in the PC tech world. Just be sure to do the firmware update from the Crucial website (or verify current firmware) - there was a major bug that was fixed on these drives.
HerbChong wrote:
tried it. not true unless your image files are there too.
Herb...
This is a well known technique for improving LR performance. Just search the web. I did not invent it nor do I take credit for it. But it definitely works.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
is that windows alone? . that would not give me any room for the lightroom stuff . so I guess I would leave it where it is
No, just windows alone probably only eats up 20-30GB. But when you start installing applications room can get tight on a 64GB SSD. 128GB seems to be a good choice for a system drive in my experience.
as i said, i have done it. immeasurable unless the image files are on something fast too.
Herb...
matanuska wrote:
This is a well known technique for improving LR performance. Just search the web. I did not invent it nor do I take credit for it. But it definitely works.
see I knew asking a gear question would cost me more money
I think my first purchase will be the 64gig SSD drive . which my current LR cat etc will reside on . I will keep the most current files on there as well while I work them and then they will go onto my normal drive.
then when I come to purchase the other stuff I think I may add another SSD for my windows .
My current system is clogged to the teeth with software I dont use . so I will do a clean install . win - LR - CS5 - Office. anything else will just have to install on a slower drive.
15Bit wrote:
Win 7 on 64Gb is possible, but a bit tight. I have it on an 80Gb with 20Gb free. You need to leave a good amount of the SSD empty to maximise the effectiveness of the load levelling.
Possible? Of course! Tight? Not if you configure properly.
It is foolish to put the PageFile on the SSD. It only thrashes the SSD. Right away that saves about as much space as you have RAM. Migrate it to a disk.
Hibernating is not needed on modern desktop systems. Eliminate it entirely (two steps). That saves again about as much space as RAM. Modern sleep states (suspended) use only a trickle of power.
I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 with all the updates including all the language packs and 36 programs like PS, mySQL, Apache, Eclipse, and PHP, all in 24 GB and that's on a 16 GB RAM system. It's in a 55 GB (60 GB nominal) partition and is using about half the space.
I don't think you need huge empty space for the SSD to shift blocks around for load levelling.
15Bit wrote:
Thats with software. No bulky games though, just usual office and photo apps.
No matter how fast the SSD is, you don't want the OS to be "tight" for space. That causes issues down the road as all operating systems grow over time.
Something else to consider...there are ways of shrinking the Windows OS when you install it. A lot of it is not necessary for typical operations. Take a look at these instructions for installing Win 7 on a 6GB USB drive.
For reference, my Win7 Home Premium is taking up about 38GB of space right now, but I haven't installed CS5. Oops. I'm trying to hunt down some of the bloat-reduction tips Monito mentioned, but haven't made that much progress yet.
Microsoft actually recommends putting the pagefile and the hiberfile on SSD's:
Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?
Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.
In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that
•Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1,
•Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB.
•Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size.
In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD.
Putting the pagefile on the SSD speeds things up enormously due to the low SSD latency. Worries about read-write cycles are overstated if you actually do the maths, unless you try to run on a 90% full partition.
15Bit wrote:
Putting the pagefile on the SSD speeds things up enormously due to the low SSD latency. Worries about read-write cycles are overstated if you actually do the maths, unless you try to run on a 90% full partition.
Yep, running the numbers - unless one is planning on keeping a computer longer than 8-10 years, all of this talk about "thrashing" an SSD is needless worrying brought on by bloggers with theorhetical, not real world perspectives. In my 20 years of PC building now, the record for keeping a computer around is 7 years, and even then the drives were swapped out at least once.
I have a sony i7 2640 laptop with 8gb ram and the fastest ssd on the market (OCZ Vertex MIOPS) and LR4 runs like Windows Vista on a netbook. LR3 is super fast, LR4 takes forever, even when I use brushes its a lag of a half a second before you see what you painted. Catalog preview file is at 10gb. Needs patching.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
For reference, my Win7 Home Premium is taking up about 38GB of space right now, but I haven't installed CS5. Oops. I'm trying to hunt down some of the bloat-reduction tips Monito mentioned, but haven't made that much progress yet.
This is amazing to me that it's so much.
On my laptop I've got Windows 7 Pro, Photoshop CS5, Microsoft Office Small Business suite, Proshow Producer, the Canon apps suite (DPP and such), and a few other smaller apps, plus the pagefile and hibernation file...35 gigs total. I didn't go to any extreme space-saving efforts.
)
)