Can anyone help?

I use a iMac with 2GB of processor memory. I use lightroom/Aperture & lately added photoshop elements. My browser is Firefox. I have to external hard drives one 300GB & one 2TB.

The activity monitor on the Mac tells me that when I have photoshop Lightroom & Firefox open that I have used just over 1GB of my 2GB RAM. If I calculate the open processes while all the above are open I can only total 402MB. Neither of the external drives are connected up to the iMac so the system is using another 600MB that I cannot account for. Working in both lightroom & photoshop can be really slow and with the hard drives & firefox up even slower.

My first question is can anyone explain this?

My next point is do I have enough RAM to use photoshop & lightroom? Can I do anything to make my work faster? I do have a Mac book as well & have wireless & with the external drives & plenty of free space I wonder can I do anything to free up processor space or do I just need more RAM?

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks

Gerard.

Gerard,

It's hard to tell exactly, but probably, the 600MB is used as file buffer cache. This means that the OS uses the RAM that is not used by other processes to cache files so that when you read something from a disk more than once, that will go a lot faster.

When you start Firefox the first time after you boot your system, you will hear your disk rattle while Firefox is starting. Then close Firefox, and start it again. This time you disk will rattle a lot less and Firefox will start a lot faster. That's the file buffer cache doing its job.

When you have a true RAM shortage, you will notice a LOT more disk activity (your slow disk is used as RAM), and a big slowdown while working with your software. If you suspect that is the case, try to close some programs and see if that improves performance (and reduces disk activity).

I think 2GB of RAM is sufficient for Lightroom & Photoshop. I have 4GB (only 3 is used on a Windows 32 bit system) and it works just fine.

Joris.

@Robert,

How would installing programs on a different partition reduce the need for RAM? Both programs still need to be load in RAM, no mather where they come from. Only the startup time for the programs could be reduced if the 2 programs were installed on different disks (not different partitions on the same disk). Then both disks would work at the same time and speed up the startup (if you start them at the same time).

If disk speed itself is an issue, then using muliple disk toghether could help (RAID devices is the IT term for this).

Joris.

Thanks guys yes same question Robert I am in the process of looking at doing the partition I don't want to do something for nothing.

Ok guys I am slow to understand & am not into computer speak so buffer & cache mean nothing.

I have read instructions to partition & have backed up all my files to my hard drive but I am not clear how this actually works.

What I think I understand is;

1. Partition the HD & split it in to two & name each one.

But what I don't understand is what I do next.

When I have actioned the partition do I then restart & then separate the different elements like image files & applications? Should I just put Photoshop & Lightroom with the image files in one partition or all applications & image files together?

Or could I put my applications on the external hard drive? will that help? will it avoid the need to do a partition on my iMac?

My apologies for labouring this but the Mac manual is rather sparse with info as it assumes we are all computer wizards I think!

I think we are getting things mixed up here.

In my first post I referred to the "File buffer cache". This is a general technique any modern operating system (Windows, MacOS, Linux,...) uses to speed up the repeated access to stuff on your hard disks. This is because reading stuff from a hard disk is A LOT slower that reading stuff from RAM.
This is not related to PS or LR specifically, but a generic thing. This technique uses the RAM that you don't use anyway. As soon as your need more RAM (like when you start more programs or open more photos in Photoshop) the operating system will use less RAM for the cache. This may explain the 600MB RAM that is used, but not by any running program.

I'm no expert on the inner workings of PS, but Robert seems to refer to the "Photoshop buffer cache" somewhere on A DISK. If Photoshop also maintains a buffer cache on a disk, then for performance reasons, it is best placed on a physically separate (fast) hard disk.

Partitioning a single physical hard disk into several logical partitions has some benefits. Files are less prone to fragmenting and you can logically separate stuff (like Robert does). But from a performance standpoint, this will not make a big difference since it is still 1 single physical drive that has to do the job.

Before taking actions Gerard, I would identify what exactly is holding you back.
You say you have 2GB of RAM in your system and only 1GB is used. When you work for some time in Photoshop and Lightroom, does the amount of used ram climb towards 2GB? If so, if you continue to work, does your hard disk start to rattle more than before? Is switching between programs starting to get slow ? Does your disk rattle like crazy when you switch between programs ?
If your answer is yes to the above questions, then you may benefit from more RAM.

There is one catch however. Photoshop and Lightroom are smart programs. The programs will detect that your system has "only" 2GB of ram and will not exaggerate the allocation of RAM. So when you open 83655 Tiff files that are 50MB each, then Photoshop will not try to load that heap into memory. But you will still notice increased disk activity.

Joris.

Hey Joris the haze is clearing! My file sizes have dramatically increased with my 5D MKII the RAW file size is 120MB at 16bit! This is really eating up storage memory (I took 1000 images for a wedding recently imagine) so if PS (Bridge) automatically starts loading these files it will slow down & will slow down even more if DPP & lightroom are open too doing the same thing!

I think I can experiment a bit further I will hold all my RAW files on the external drives this may help & I will partition the system & applications to different sections. I do recognise though that ultimately greater RAM is always better!

Thank you for taking further time to demystify this stuff it is appreciated. Owe you a beer if you are ever in London! That goes for you as well Robert!

I don't think it gives much effect to place ps scratch disk on a different partition. You might get rid of the alarm in ps, but if you want it to speed up your system scratch disk should be set to a different physical disk.

Thanks again Robert & Lars. In fact after thinking about it I chose to use my external drive as the scratch disk. I haven't had the time though to see if in fact this makes any difference.

Gerard,

I wouldn't recommend using an external drive (USB or Firewire) as your scratch disc, the transfer speeds will be a lot slower than an internal drive. If you have an eSATA connection to a fast (7200rpm) external drive then it may be worth using, but even then most external drives are not designed for such use.

I actually thought that Photoshop wouldn't use an external USB or Firewire drive as a scratch disc, perhaps that is just a Windows restriction. If this is incorrect and you can and do use an external drive as a scratch disc, purchase another drive to use ( make sure it is 7200 not 5400 rpm), separate to your backup disc. Using it as a scratch disc will mean more wear on the drive and as external drives have a habit of falling over better to break one that doesn't have your photos on it.

Your best bet is to add more RAM. Go to Kingston or Corsair and use their search tools to see the options available for your machine. Depending on how it has been configured you may have to ditch the installed RAM to increase your RAM. As in, if there is 2 RAM slots taken up with 1gb stick in each slot, you'll have to ditch them to put in 2 x 2gb sticks of RAM. Hopefully there is 4 RAM slots with two free on your motherboard. If the computer uses DDR2, you need to buy and install in pairs. There are plenty of guides on the net on installing RAM. Remember, static and RAM don't play well together.

http://www.corsair.com/configurator/default.aspx

http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator_new/lines.asp?root=us&LinkBack=http://www.kingston.com&Manufacturer=app&search_type=

The next best option is to purchase another hard disc to install internally but I doubt there would be room in an iMac ?

Next up, I would go for three partitions.

OS
Scratch disc
Data

Make the scratch disc about 20gb and use it only as a scratch disc, make it the second partition if possible ( platter/ head movement benefit). If you put the scratch disc on a partition where other data is being written, defrag the drive on a regular basis to ensure the scratch disc is writing to a contiguous area of the drive, rather than being written on different parts of the disc.

Don't put your programs/ applications on an external drive, this will slow things down.

Install your programs/ applications, Photoshop etc, onto the same drive as the OS resides.

Thanks Jeremy I have left it as is but will investigate the additional RAM as this seems the most efficient method to overcome my work speed issues. I really appreciate the detailed information it is very comprehensive & I now am beginning to feel much more confident about the workings of this stuff god forbid I may understand it one day! Cheers!

if you ahve a fairly large, fairly empty partition on your internal hard drive, make that your primary scratch disk. make sure it is not the one that the application is on. I wouldn't make an external drive a primary scratch disc, it would be too slow. maybe as third, or even second if you have a big first scratch disc partition. More ram is always good but i would have thought 2gig would be enough.
oops! I just noticed and corrected a typo. . 'primary scratch dick' . . . now that would be a different sort of problem. . ;-)

Gerard,

I got new ram for rmy mac book from a website called crucial I had 2gb and double to 4gb all for about £36 so it was a no brainer. Dont buy from Apple it will cost you about £200. On the crucial web site they have some software which will check you computer and tell you what you have already then tell you what you should buy so it makes even easier.

http://www.crucial.com/uk/mac/index.aspx

I run Aperture and photoshop and they both run well with the 4gb of ram I now have I think its a 2.4mhz dual processor. You can never have enough ram shame I am maxed out now if only my budget had streched to a mac book pro....maybe next time.

Ian

Thanks for the link. I may get another 2 gig for my mac pro ;-)

Ian I got the additional memory cheap & easy to install though the jury is out on performanI have another issuece I will though feedback as things move on!

I have another issue and thats in relation to storage space (and I may have asked this before)

I seem to eat up space and yes clearly using RAW & a machine that produces in 16bit 120mgb files thats going to be an issue thats mine to deal with but on calculating where everything is I find that I currently have 198,5GB on my harddrive. Of this 172GB is images. The problem is that if I enquire into that number I only find 142GB where are the other 30GB thats like 1000 images on my 5D but I can't find them I checked in ALL files & the system architecture & still cannot reconcile these numbers. Why would the system profiler tell me I got 172GB taken up but only 142 can be found?

Anyone know what is going on?

I dont know if this helps but the purge command in photoshop - its either under file or edit , this clears all histories and clipboard - you would be doing well to alter the amount of history ps records in the preferences too. I am sure light room will have something similar - I don't use lightroom at all , don't see the point! Purge command is usefull in actions too!

Hi Gerard,
I'm still working with an old DP Mac G5 2Ghz dual - late 1975 (no Intel) and Photoshop SC3.
Have installed 8 GB ram memory and can only +- 4 GB, because the processor works only on 8 bit.
When I'm working with CS3 and heavy PS documents, the fans have to work hard, because I think those programs are to modern and build for Intel. CS 5 and Leopard can't even be installed on this Mac and I must work with Tiger 10.4.11.

From time to time, I use "Onyx" (Free) to clean the Mac, it gives more space on the HD's and I have the impression PS works better.
You should try it, but I think more GB ram will also be needed for such heavy programs.

Regards,
Ben

Ben I have only 2 words for you: PC

Never!!!!

Once (since 32 years), Mac always:-)

Never had a problem, even this one is 5 years old, he works still fine with PS docs above 250 MB and never a crash.
I tried this on a new PC laptop and he crashed many times!?

I have also a recent MacBookPro 17" (Intel) for PS workshops/presentations and of course he go faster with PS and other graphic programs.
But still prefer too work with DT G5 Mac and the 23" Aple Cinema Display for PS, better color control

My son has one of those MacBook, "very shiny", as he says nowdays when he really likes something!!
I borrowed it a few weeks ago on a working trip to Joshua Tree. Problem is that it's "very shiny"!! The screen is terrible for glare and reflections, virtually unusable till the sun goes down. I was trying to do tethered shooting in the great room of a B&B which was bathed in morning sunlight from tons of big windows...useless! Love the layout, the performance, the keyboard, hate the screen during the day...

I work on a Intel hopped up 8 core Mac at work with 2 big monitors and at home I have a fairly potent dual core, home built PC running Win 7 64 bit. 16gb ram both places. I really don't notice any difference except the missing second monitor at home. I run 10k rpm HD's at home and I am pretty sure the PC out performs the Mac on file opening/saving. Processing speed is bout the same because the app's are truly 64 bit at home and mostly 32 bit at work still.

Stability on Win 7 is as good or slightly better than on the Mac at work. Running basically the same app's both places, PS CS4, LR 3, After Effects, etc.

Make sure you don't open a strange email attachment that wipes your entire jpeg collection on that Windows box and remember to constantly apply security updates! Also, keep that registry clean and defrag those hard disks! Once you do all of that, reboot it every week or so to keep the memory free of leaky OS operations, keep installing new drivers every time you want to attach another device, then Windows is a breeze to use!

(sorry for the diatribe...I'm a recent convert and am much happier)

Whiner...!!

My mac at work takes just as much "maintenance" as my PC at home. Every decent systems guy will tell you the same...and they will ALL tell you to reboot your computer every day or two whether you think you need it or not, PC, Mac, Linux, all of them. With Win7 I have not installed one single driver ever, except my older Nikon firewire scanner and that is a know failure of Nikon to provide updated drivers to the Windows database. And, yes Windows 7 is just as breezy as Mac. I am not just a PC nut saying this. I am currently typing on a top of the line Intel Mac and will sit tonight at home in front of a pretty damn good PC. So I have day to day comparisons to speak from.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE is cost. My PC at home with will keep up with my Mac at work cost about 35% as much...

Not so sure! I used to have to replace PCs every 2 years due to breakage from poor construction (usually laptops) or worsening performance. I'm typing from a 4+ yr old MacBook Pro that's traveled countless hours and is just as snappy as ever! My partner works on a 10-yr-old Mac Pro that works great. Once you factor in cost over time, I think that argument disappears.

You can also, by the way, build your own Mac tower these days if you are technically inclined.

--Eric

From many I have read on forums, who converted, did not regret it, they never went back to Windows when they got used to Mac Os system. Windows 7 goes in that direction, but still far from intelligent logic system as Mac os X.
(f.e.:To shut down, you still have go to start PC ?????? )

I see nothing than problems with PC's, from many people I know, even after less then 2 years !!?
25 years Mac never a problem, only some updates due to heavy programs.

But we shouldn't promote this, maybe viruses will be created for Mac OS X.

Gerard get some more RAM memory and you will be "safe"!!!

converted 12 years ago.... difference's very little:
pc = you do what the maschine wants (Eric has already described a few things in this category :)
mac = the maschine does what you want

cheers, mauro