Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 07 May 2011 (Saturday) 21:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

workflow with photos in SSD -> RAID

 
datadump
Goldmember
Avatar
1,932 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
May 07, 2011 21:31 |  #1

Heya all

I recently upgraded my pc finally to an i7 2600K. LOVE LOVE LOVE. The best part about it is that my windows OS (and lightroom) is on the SSD drive and things are just SO snappy fast (especially bootup time).

My catalog and photos are on a eSata RAID (mirroring) at the moment ... but
I'm wondering if anyone is using SSD for lightroom catalog + photos as well? I'm thinking doing this will also speed up lightroom environment (especially Develop module?)

only problem is, SSD is small so it wont last too long.... anyone have a working flow using SSD as "temp" area and then move it to main RAID setup later on? seeems super tedious but the editing speed is worth it?


datadump

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
May 08, 2011 06:17 |  #2

datadump wrote in post #12367518 (external link)
anyone have a working flow using SSD as "temp" area and then move it to main RAID setup later on? seeems super tedious but the editing speed is worth it?

I have an SSD and a single data drive. I use the SSD for Windows, Program Files and the LR catalog. If I'm working on a large batch of files then I'll also transfer them to the SSD for processing, then move them (from within LR) to the HDD once I'm done.

I did a test to time profile generation on the SSD and the HDD and the SSD was quite a bit faster (surprisingly so as I'd assumed it would be processor-limited). It doesn't add much to the workflow time. Importing to SSD can only be faster than HDD. And the transfer from SSD to HDD when processing is over can be started and left to run on its own.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
May 08, 2011 10:48 |  #3

The more steps, the more opportunity to screw something up. KISS.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
woos
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2008
Location: a giant bucket
     
May 08, 2011 13:51 |  #4

A fast HDD is quite good at sequential read and write speeds, or "good enough" for photo/video stuff. Which is what you'll be doing throwing a bunch of RAW files on it. Where they suck is random reads/writes, SSD is so much faster there that it's not even funny.

SSD would be a lot (noticeably) faster, but imho i'd use a good HDD for data storage and use the SSD for apps/OS/page file/cache/etc. Now, if you have the $$$, then sure, by all means grab some 256gb ssds and roll with it for photo/video storage, just make backups. But for most I think the sweet spot is a 64 or 128gb SSD + hdd or two or three for media storage.


amanathia.zenfolio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,938 posts
Likes: 340
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 08, 2011 15:48 |  #5

Everything i've read, including some experiments by a very technical photographer, says put your RAW files on a fast spinning drive, and the cache on the SSD. Hard drives deliver data just as quickly as most SSDs, it's just the latency that SSDs win at right now. Latency for getting the raw images isn't so important. Latency for getting the little previews from the cache is important.

btw cache is not the same as catalog in LR, afaik.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 532
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 08, 2011 16:32 |  #6

Lightroom stores previews in two different ways and places -- the "normal" previews are stored in the Catalog folder, but the full-size used in the Develop module are stored in the Camera Raw Cache (which it shares with Camera Raw if you have it).


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
datadump
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,932 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Canada
     
May 09, 2011 07:20 |  #7

tim wrote in post #12371418 (external link)
Everything i've read, including some experiments by a very technical photographer, says put your RAW files on a fast spinning drive, and the cache on the SSD. Hard drives deliver data just as quickly as most SSDs, it's just the latency that SSDs win at right now. Latency for getting the raw images isn't so important. Latency for getting the little previews from the cache is important.

btw cache is not the same as catalog in LR, afaik.

interesting.

so the setting here: http://www.pixiq.com/a​rticle/camera-raw-cache (external link)
point that to an SSD?


datadump

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,938 posts
Likes: 340
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 09, 2011 20:16 |  #8

datadump wrote in post #12374926 (external link)
interesting.

so the setting here: http://www.pixiq.com/a​rticle/camera-raw-cache (external link)
point that to an SSD?

Yep, I have that ACR cache and also the bridge cache on an SSD. Some time i'll do some testing with both SSDs, caches on one and images on another. Someone could test with the LR catalog on an SSD, but they get pretty big, so you'd probably want to offload them after processing.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
May 09, 2011 20:20 |  #9

I doubt that the SSD is much faster for just reading and writing plain picture files than a HD with nothing else going on on the HD.

As mentioned above, shuffling is risky. I would try to avoid it.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,938 posts
Likes: 340
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 09, 2011 20:49 |  #10

uOpt wrote in post #12379126 (external link)
I doubt that the SSD is much faster for just reading and writing plain picture files than a HD with nothing else going on on the HD.

As mentioned above, shuffling is risky. I would try to avoid it.

SSDs only help when you're loading lots of small files rapidly, such as loading the OS or reading thumbnails from a cache. Hard drives have a lot more latency, but their transfer speeds are as good or better than SSDs.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
May 09, 2011 21:33 |  #11

tim wrote in post #12379280 (external link)
SSDs only help when you're loading lots of small files rapidly, such as loading the OS or reading thumbnails from a cache. Hard drives have a lot more latency, but their transfer speeds are as good or better than SSDs.

Not really anymore, the best one now beat HDs and raid1 only helps random seeks, not contiguous transfers.

Still, I question whether writing or reading a photoshop file (jpg or ps) will be much different in practice and worth the risk of shuffling.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,938 posts
Likes: 340
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 09, 2011 22:03 |  #12

uOpt wrote in post #12379572 (external link)
Not really anymore, the best one now beat HDs and raid1 only helps random seeks, not contiguous transfers.

Still, I question whether writing or reading a photoshop file (jpg or ps) will be much different in practice and worth the risk of shuffling.

True, my point was hard disks are still pretty good for transferring large files :)

In practical terms I find SSDs great for fast booting and for cache, I haven't tried it for much else.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
czynot
Member
198 posts
Joined Sep 2008
     
May 09, 2011 22:20 |  #13

I have 2600k OC @ 4.6ghz, sabertooth, 8gb ram. 128GB SSD and 4x2TB in raid 10 for storage. I have PS5 and it open up in 3 seconds. Working with photos is no problem. each raw file is 21mb. To open 21mb file take less than a second from memory card or any spindal HDD. My raided Sata III 6gb/s HDD rated 180mb/s read/write and Sata III SSD rated 410mb read and 210 write. Any single Sata II 3gb/s HDD will give you atleast 30-60mb/s write. So I wouldnt worry too much about editing any photos with your setup.

Note: First generation SSD are slower than spindal HDD but now newer SSD suppass spindal HDD. SSD are faster than any spindal HDDs. Spindal HDD have spin up and Seek time, SSD almost have none. Transfer rate with newer SSD are alot faster than ANY Spindal HDD.
Sata II 3gb/s spindal HDD @ 5400rpm does NOT mean you get to transfer at 3gb/s. Sata II at best constant transfer will give you 30-50mb/s
Example. My Sata III 7200rpm 6gb/s raid 1+0 rated only 180mb/s (raided!). SSD Sata III 6gb/s is 410mb/s read and 230m/s write.


5D MKII, 24-70mm L, 18-55mm IS,70-200mm 2.8L IS, 50mm 1.8, 100mm Macro, 2-580EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,938 posts
Likes: 340
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
May 09, 2011 22:48 |  #14

Startup time for the OS or PS is really irrelevant most of the time. Most people start the PC once a day, and start PS once or at most a few times a day. Once it's been started once it's cached in ram anyway, so would start quickly unless huge memory usage kicks it out of the cache.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magwai
Goldmember
1,094 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Guildford, UK
     
May 10, 2011 06:56 |  #15

remember that SSDs are much less reliable than HDDs so have a good and regular backup.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,398 views & 0 likes for this thread
workflow with photos in SSD -> RAID
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ajtype
743 guests, 351 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.