Ramdisk + SSD scratch disk: Next chapter in optimizing CS5 performance?

I'm building a new system, and since my main performance draw is CS5 (and LR3, but that already performs very reasonable on my current system), I've considered the following setup (more specs at the bottom):

- Main disk: Samsung F3 1TB
- Cached SSD: Intel 311 20GB
These two disks will have Intel Smart Response enabled. It'll have my OS, CS5 installation and full LR3 catalog / archive (also backed up on a NAS)

- Secondary SSD: Crucial m4 128GB (might change this to s Force3 or OCZ Vertex3 if all the Sandforce 2 troubles clear up).
This will contain my active LR3 catalog, mainly if I'm working on large (collections like a wedding), and also serves as an instant backup to the files I'm working with.

Initially I planned for 8GB, but with DDR3 prices, I'd be silly not to start off with 16GB.
Since I only work on 12megapixel images and occasionally a 30 megapixel panorama, I think I would have enough with 12GB RAM and just considered making a 4GB ramdisk to use as a first scratch disk. Secondary will overflow to the 128GB SSD.

The main reason for NOT using the 128GB SSD as a boot disk is that the MLC SSD's do still need some maintenance/work as a main drive, and I prefer being able to change it to a different one easier than having to clone my system to another drive. I also think that the Smart Response technology (currently only in the Z68 chipset afaik) combined with the Intel 20GB SLC SSD is really wonderful and offers a best of both worlds, but it's probably not as well suited to work with many, many files in a LR catalog, especially since a first-time opening is basically just HDD performance.
The ramdisk as a primary scratch disk might prove to prolong the SSD's life - even if it only adds a very minor performance boost.

I have absolutely no experience in performance tuning for graphics workstations, but I do the same as a living for large volume databases, so just figured this could work.
Of course it'll need a good and stable ramdisk driver, but I figured it could perform like crazy. Maybe assigning 4GB more ram to CS5 will work better, but from what I've read, photoshop will want to write to a scratch disk no matter what - even if it still has plenty of free ram to use.
Any thoughts / experiences with setups like this? I'm especially interested in the ramdisk idea, but any other suggestions are also welcome...

Please mind that I'm on a mild budget, but these are the full specs of what I'm building:

• Intel Core i5-2500K
  
• AsRock Z68 Pro3-M
  
• 4 x 4GB DDR3 Ram (G.Skill Ripjaws F3-10666CL9D-8GBRL)
  
• 1TB HDD (Samsung Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ)
  
• 20GB SSD (Intel 311 20GB)
  
• 128GB SSD (not yet sure, but the Crucial m4 is looking to be good value)
  
• HD 6770 GPU.
  
• And a case + powersupply (not really relevant but Fractal Design Define Mini + Seasonic M12II 520W)
  

All those SSD's and your only using a 2500K?
Get an i7 2600K and watch what LR3 does with 4 real and 4 virtual cores


As for the RAM disc, don't bother.
They are a throw back to 32bit and the 4GB limit.
Your much better off allocating more RAM to Photoshop and using one of the SSD's.
If you do the math on the number of read writes, drive life really isn't a problem, unless you plan to use the same drive for several decades.

Well... The way I use LR, I think I'd benefit more from a faster disk than from hyperthreading (same price difference basically). It's worth taking a look at though, maybe the i7 would be a better fit when adding extra 8GB and an extra SSD (which I didn't initially have in my specs).

If you take a look at the bottom of the page here: http://tweakers.net …s-desktop-benchmarks.html (apologies for dutch, but the numbers should explain it) and here: http://techgage.com …2500k_i7-2600k_reviewed/7, there's not a huge difference between the top i5-2500K and i7-2600K. Although they only tested exporting - maybe 8 threads do more for in-application performance.

You don't need more than 8GB of ram unless your working on some massive panoramas or also doing HD Video.

Running LR3, PS CS5, Chrome and winamp, my system usually sits on around 3-4GB of ram usage, and that includes windows pre-fetch.
Heavy editing, batching etc, I might see usage spike around 5-6GB, but to use all 8GB I need to create a pretty massive file.
I've only done it once, that was creating a 16 image pano using 16bit tiffs from my 5D2.

On the other hand, with all of that running, I regularly see activity on all 8 cores.
LR3 will use as many as you can throw at it, especially when generating previews and exporting.
It will even use all 8 doing brush adjustments.
Heres a screen shot taken after doing some random brush adjustments on a 5D2 image (note my system is running at 4.4ghz, and there was no delay in the adjustments).

Forget the RAMdisk IMHO, and get the MLC SSD. Even with REALLY heavy use they should last 10+ years.

Plus everything Moppie said.

I think a RamDisk is a good idea. I have 4gb set aside for a Ramdisk on my 16gb RAM system.
But I use a 60gb Vertex 2 as my system drive, with a 1tb HDD as my secondary drive for data.

You're right, Photoshop will use the scratch disk no matter how much free RAM you have - when I open up a file on CS5, the amount of free space on my RamDisk/scratch disk always goes down - and continues to go down with every file I open from within CS5, even after I close the previous out. CS5 only releases the scratch disk space if you close the program completely. Available RAM is still 8-9gb while editing a single Canon 7d RAW image.

I'm with you, with such ridiculously low prices on DDR3 (70 bucks for 2x4gb), it's a no-brainer to max out the RAM to 16gb, and if your programs don't need it all, then set aside 4gb for a RamDrive.

Though you could as easily get a small SSD - 40 or 60gb 25nm MLC SSD for almost $1/gb on sale/rebate and use that as a disposable scratch disk and to store your LR3 catalogs. It will always be slower than RAM of course.

Personally I'd use the 128gb SSD as the main/system drive for Windows and your programs. Then use the 20gb as a secondary scratch/catalog disk, and the F3 as your data drive. And it wouldn't hurt to set aside 3-4gb of your 16gb RAM as a RamDrive for Windows temp files, and primary scratch disk.

It's just as easy to clone your system from the 128gb SSD as it is cloning the F3 HDD.

PS does always use Scratch, no matter how much ram it has. But it only has an impact on performance if it has to access the scratch due to a shortage of ram.

With enough ram (8GB is heaps for most photography work), then the speed of the scratch disc is not an issue.

Hence, buying extra ram just to create a scratch disc is a poor investment under a modern 64bit system.

Thanks for all your insightful replies, even if opinions vary, it's a good discussion.
There's something to be said for adding more ram no matter if I use the ramdisk or not. It won't hurt performance and does allow some working space for running virtual machines or sql databases (my work stuff). At about 60 euros, I'd rather up the ram to 16gb now than having to find the right modules in 2 years, that bit me in the ass earlier.

I guess I'll forgo the ramdisk idea for now, and just have my working catalog on the SSD.
The 20GB SSD is specifically designed to be used for caching with Intel Smart Response though. It's relatively expensive for it's size, but the performance boost it gives a regular SATA HDD in bootup, starting applications and for often used files is really stunning.

I might not even add second (120-128GB) ssd when I first buy everything though, it'll be easy to add later.

Can you explain more about the 20GB SSD? I have no idea what intel smart response is.

In a nutshell: it's a feature on the Z68 chipset that works as a sort of raid 0 where a HDD and SDD are "joined together" and data that is requested from the HDD gets placed on the SSD. I think the driver does some content-based decision making, because "useless" files get excluded.
What it does in practice is like this:

Take boot time as an example (and random times):
Pure SSD: 20 seconds
Pure HDD: 60 seconds
SDD+HDD first boot = 60 seconds (maybe 61, but it ha a surprisingly low overhead)
SDD+HDD second boot = 22 seconds (something like it).

"By default" it only improves read times, and data is saved redundant (what's on the SSD is always on the HDD).
If you run it in maximized more (opposed to enhanced) it also performes a form of delayed write, so write performance also improves massively, at the risk of data loss when the SSD should break.

The intel 311 is designed for this, so it's SLC ssd (3 times as expensive as MLC) with very high IO's in the 4k and 512k read and write. It also featured stuff like saving it's buffer on power loss.

Read more here: http://techgage.com …ponse_ssd_cachi​ng_tested/

And some flattering numbers here: http://www.anandtech.c​om …logy-ssd-caching-review/4

So it's a cache that you can't really control? Just get a 120GB SSD and put the data you want to access fast on that.

Great deal here in case you guys havent seen it! G.Skill DDR3 1600 16GB for $119 shipped. LINK

Im returning my Corsair Vengence 8GB for 16GB of this! lol