SSD Setup: Scratch/OS/Applications

I see a lot of people recommending putting different things on different drives. Very often I see recommendations for having a scratch drive and a separate drive for Apps/OS.

Does anyone have any actual data on these setups? I see it recommended quite often on this forum and am wondering if it is just getting repeated because people read it and take it as fact or if there is actual data behind it.

I want to see numbers too. I have done tests where there is a 'feel' improvement but the actual speed isn't any faster in any benchmarks.

I am happy to run tests if anyone can provide a good setup and benchmark.

Don't quite understand your question.

My SSD holds OSX Library and Application folders, this includes the Library folder normally maintained in your Home folder. I symlinked everything else from Home (includes Data/Storage things like Pictures, Music, Movies etc).

If you're talking Adobe performance, you'll have to have your ~/user/YOU folder on the SSD to witness the best increases. That and your LR catalog if LR is in your workflow. You can always move your lrcat and then locate it with finder.

I haven't produced anything in Premiere Pro yet, but I'm assuming since my Library Scratch is now on SSD, it will be much faster.

I have an SSD as my OS + Apps drive.
I have a second SSD for working on current projects. Right now, it's got 3 weddings on it.
I have a third SSD for Bridge/ACR cache and Photoshop Scratch. I also have a few VMWare Virtual Machines on this drive. (Day job = programmer)

I decided to keep them all separate because a) The SSD drives were cheap in my mind b) Wanted to keep things neatly separated.

Working on images off of an SSD definitely "feels" faster. Thumbnails draw TONS faster than they do when I work off of my internal WD Caviar Black drive. Metadata writes TONS faster as well. That was a source of my frustration in Bridge, so the SSD solved that with flying colors.

Now once the image is opened in PS CS5 and is loaded into memory, the SSD isn't part of the equation until saving the image. Obviously it'll write to an SSD faster than a hard drive, but that's probably not a show stopper by any stretch.

I did some test runs converting RAW files to JPEGS in a batch and when I have the files on an SSD, it is definitely much faster. But again, I am more of an instant gratification type person. You wouldn't typically convert in batch and sit in front of your compute staring at the screen.

But I can tell you there's a definitely performance boost.

This is what I am talking about. Two posts taken from threads on the front page of this sub forum. Names removed as I am not trying to point fingers or call anyone out. I am actually just interested in the changes this makes.

I have see quite a bit where this type of setup is recommended on this forum. With the speed of SSDs and a lot of people having 8GB+ of RAM to work with is there really a speed improvement from having more than one SSD and splitting Apps/OS and a scratch drive.

Im interested in seeing objective data on the improvements. I understand the theory but theory and practice are often different. Also are the gains only shown in batch processing and/or large volume work? Alot of the users on this forum are only editing a small volume of work and often a single photo at a time. They may not need seperate SSDs and it often gets recommended.

I have done something similar to what I am looking for with overclocking on my i5. Using the same 50 RAW photos I have seen how long certain operations take at various overclocks. There are gains made when batch processing but for single photo work you might save a second or two but there is no change in the 'feel' or subjective operation.

The first quote sounds like something I wrote.
I'm not sure what you are looking for. I don't do benchmarks. I know what I wrote because I recently made the switch to SSD drives. Having the OS + Apps on an SSD drive won't help you edit your photos any faster. Your OS will boot faster and apps will open faster, but that's about it.

I didn't do what the second quote says. As I mentioned already in my previous post, I chose to put the images on my current projects on an SSD drive because things like thumbnail generation, opening RAW files in ACR, etc, are much faster. But once the file is in memory, and if you have enough memory allocated to say Photoshop (I have 12GB of RAM in my PC), then processing should happen in-memory, so the SSD at this point is out of the equation. It's only when you have to save to the disk that it comes back into the equation. But you have to ask yourself whether that's worth it. To me, it was, and it does make a very tangible difference. Again, I am an instant gratification type of person, so I hate waiting for thumbnails to draw, metafile data taking forever to write, etc, etc. But again, once they are drawn/written, then that's that.

Real world benefits of having images on an SSD is questionable. The initial benefits are huge. But once you wait it out and let LR/ACR/Bridge do it's thing and you are ready to edit, the benefits aren't that huge.

I'm guessing the reason for putting OS+Apps on one and scratch on the other is a perceived bottle neck as lightroom and OS would be fighting with the scratch for bandwidth if on the same SSD.

I'm interested to see if there really is a bottleneck. And if they do compete for bandwidth what is the impact.

I have my OS (Win 7) and Lightroom (App and all associated files) on a single SSD. I put my files to be edited on my SSD and previews are instant and going from a caviar black to a SSD showed only a 1 or 2 second improvement in a batch process of 50 files for creating 1:1 preview and exporting to JPEG. I now have faster RAM and a higher OC so we shall see if there is a bottleneck somewhere else when I have time for some new tests.

Long story short I see a two SSD setup recommended alot on this forum and I am interested to see something objective that shows the benefit for a batch processing user and/or a hobbyist that works on a few at a time. The palcebo effect can be very interesting in things like these and a improvement and 'feel' like its there when it really isn't. I would hate to see people spending their money on something that won't benefit them.

Well, it's all relative isn't it? Is the difference huge enough to make a real-world difference when using separate a SSD for photo editing? I'm going to say no to that.

The only reason I have a separate drive is b/c that's the way I want it. I want my OS + App drive to be kept nice and clean. I've always set up my PC that way. I'm sure at a benchmark level, there may be a difference, but again in real world usage, probably none.

Since the drives I purchased were pretty cheap (Samsung 830 128GB = $90, Sandisk Extreme 240GB x 2 = $170 each) I thought why not? It was much cheaper than upgrading my i7-920 based PC. I just wanted my PC to "feel" a little quicker. It sure does now. I also have my chip overclocked to 4Ghz. I had to get a rather large HSF for that to happen though.

OH you mean having two SSDs for the specific function of having one scratch and one for OS+Apps.

Probably makes no difference.

Glueeater wrote in post #14768178
OH you mean having two SSDs for the specific function of having one scratch and one for OS+Apps.

Probably makes no difference.

Yes that is what I am trying to see some data on. I have seen time and again from many different users on this forum that a dual drive setup be used and was wondering if anyone had any actual data on it.

To often on forums something is stated and then repeated by others and eventually taken as fact. I understand how their could be a benefit but am not sure if it is actually noticeable or actual objective improvements can be shown.

Recommendations for hardware should be given based on data and fact not subjective means.

I think this is what you are looking for, i have seen it repeated a couple of times:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com …be-lightroom-performance/

I know that when i was looking at getting an SSD i realized besides load times of windows, it appeared to me that LR wasn't getting the bump that i would of thought it would.

That link ended with "However, as the various tests have demonstrated, SSDs are not the magic bullet that some would have you believe" which is what stuck in my head. Yeah SSDs will speed alot of things up but when i saw his test/benches i realized that it wasn't enough yet. Especially since what i have was working fine

My computer boots in 26 seconds to loaded OSX Lion desktop.

LR doesn't hesitate to open, and I can scroll through my entire 50k photo catalog without lag or waiting longer than 1 second for a preview.

I don't do benchmarks (aside from timing my boot last night for my new Lion install). For $90, I can't complain.

Bleufire wrote in post #14768316
I think this is what you are looking for, i have seen it repeated a couple of times:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com …be-lightroom-performance/

I know that when i was looking at getting an SSD i realized besides load times of windows, it appeared to me that LR wasn't getting the bump that i would of thought it would.

That link ended with "However, as the various tests have demonstrated, SSDs are not the magic bullet that some would have you believe" which is what stuck in my head. Yeah SSDs will speed alot of things up but when i saw his test/benches i realized that it wasn't enough yet. Especially since what i have was working fine

thanks for this, don't have time to read it all the way through right now but looks like some solid configurations and tests.

Glueeater wrote in post #14768329
My computer boots in 26 seconds to loaded OSX Lion desktop.

LR doesn't hesitate to open, and I can scroll through my entire 50k photo catalog without lag or waiting longer than 1 second for a preview.

I don't do benchmarks (aside from timing my boot last night for my new Lion install). For $90, I can't complain.

This.

I use Bridge, and with the RAW files on an SSD, the thumbnails draw really fast. When I had the files on a hard drive, it was pretty slow. Again, this is obviously not a show stopper. You just wait until they draw, then go about your business. But isn't that the whole point of SSD drives? They make things go faster. But it's not like you wouldn't be able to do the things you need to do without an SSD.

As for having a separate SSD for photo editing, that's entirely up to the user. I am in IT. I always think in terms of separation of concerns. Application Servers on one server. Database server on another. Index Server on another, etc. etc.

In much the same way I would have OS + Apps on one drive, photos on another. Actually I went as far as having my Apps on another drive, but I've loosened up on that a while ago. Also, makes backing up your system drive easier and cleaner too.

I don't think there's a huge advantage having 2 separate drives in terms of real world performance for photo editing.

Bleufire wrote in post #14768316
I think this is what you are looking for, i have seen it repeated a couple of times:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com …be-lightroom-performance/

I know that when i was looking at getting an SSD i realized besides load times of windows, it appeared to me that LR wasn't getting the bump that i would of thought it would.

That link ended with "However, as the various tests have demonstrated, SSDs are not the magic bullet that some would have you believe" which is what stuck in my head. Yeah SSDs will speed alot of things up but when i saw his test/benches i realized that it wasn't enough yet. Especially since what i have was working fine

Exactly what I was going to post.