1TB external bus-powered SSD drive with Thunderbolt?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, May 30, 2014.

  1. On 5/30/14 PDT, 10:06 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <lmabna$ulq$>, John McWilliams wrote:


    >> Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will in fact
    >> speed up processing?

    >
    > Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the reading and
    > writing of files. Processing is done with the processor, and has nothing to
    > do with the speed of the drives.
    >
    >> Last time I looked into it, the answer was no,
    >> but times change, and processing methods move about as well.

    >
    > Do you mean photo processing/post processing? Then no, it won't be sped up
    > with the drives. But I've never felt I don't have enough processing power
    > for images (well, sure, 36MP RAW files from my D800E can be a bit beefy to
    > work with).


    Yes of course I meant photo processing. Or any intensive work on files.

    Speeding up the read/write to a storage disk isn't going to get me much
    bang for my buck. YMMV.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 3, 2014
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/1/2014 10:09 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    > On 6/1/14 PDT, 4:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:20:55 -0700, John McWilliams
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 6/1/14 PDT, 3:11 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:21:20 +0200, android <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article <300520141105178062%>,
    >>>>> nospam <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> la cie is well known for power supply failures.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> And disk failures, which I think is less of a factor with SSD's.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> disk failures are not la cie's fault.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> la cie doesn't make the disks. they buy them from disk
    >>>>>>>> manufacturers.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why is this not a failure of La Cie? Don't they have a choice of
    >>>>>>> what
    >>>>>>> vendors to purchase their disks from?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> because la cie does not make the drives.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> very simple.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> if you buy a vehicle and the power steering fails, such as what's the
    >>>>>> focus of a current recall, is it your fault or the car maker's fault?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes...
    >>>>> Ford's more likely to cut corners on quality than Mercedes. Just as an
    >>>>> example...
    >>>>
    >>>> Even though they don't mean to, Mercedes cuts more corners on quality
    >>>> than either Toyota or Honda.
    >>>>
    >>>> See for example
    >>>> http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/reliability-108/vs-E-Class-186
    >>>
    >>> Absolutely meaningless 'statistics'. Not only are the numbers miniscule,
    >>> it's a self selecting group.
    >>> Hogwash.

    >>
    >> I wouldn't condemn it as heavily as all that. I was actually looking
    >> for a particular reputable industry-wide survey but I couldn't
    >> remember it's name (I still can't). But the story it tells is much
    >> the same.
    >>

    > Consumer Reports does a major survey of vehicles. I've looked at it in
    > the past, but believe you have to subscribe, but I could be off on that.


    I get online access through my local public library. That said, I pay
    for it through taxes.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/1/2014 10:12 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    > On 6/1/14 PDT, 12:29 PM, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 6/1/2014 12:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> As Wile E. Coyote knows, it is best to be wary of Acme Corp. products.
    >>>

    >>
    >> A well known international law firm was not the least bit suspicious
    >> when it purchased a non-existent residential housing complex for several
    >> million dollars. The name of the property manager was Wylie Coyote.
    >>

    > Please, tell us more!
    >

    Every so often I am tempted to write a book about that. The only reason
    I don't is that it could embarrass the swindler's family. The swindler
    is long passed.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  4. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/2/2014 4:15 AM, android wrote:

    <snip>

    >
    > Take a seat so to speak. Put yourself behind the drivers wheel in a
    > showroom and you know why a Mercedes costs significantly more than a
    > Ford or Honda. I do think that the Lexuses seem to be nice rides
    > though...
    >


    There is a big difference between sitting in a car in a showroom and
    taking it out on the road for a few days. (I used to rent a car before I
    bought it. The average fifteen minute test drive is inadequate. Sitting
    in the showroom is ony good for eliminating ease of access issues.

    INHO For my purposes the Lexus RX350 is one of the better riding cars,
    in its category. I test drove similar models of the Mercedes, Accura and
    BMW. The Accura didn't come close, and the other two were not worth the
    difference in price.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  5. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 2:41 AM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <300520141326075071%>, nospam wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Sandman

    >
    >>>> John McWilliams:
    >>>> Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will in
    >>>> fact speed up processing?
    >>>
    >>> Sandman:
    >>> Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    >>> reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    >>> processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.

    >>
    >> it does if it's i/o bound.

    >
    > Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.
    >

    I think that depends on how and if, the program uses a scratch drive.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  6. Sandman

    android Guest

    In article <>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > On 6/1/2014 10:09 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    > > On 6/1/14 PDT, 4:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:20:55 -0700, John McWilliams
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On 6/1/14 PDT, 3:11 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 07:21:20 +0200, android <> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> In article <300520141105178062%>,
    > >>>>> nospam <> wrote:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>> In article <>, Tony Cooper
    > >>>>>> <> wrote:
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> la cie is well known for power supply failures.
    > >>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> And disk failures, which I think is less of a factor with SSD's.
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> disk failures are not la cie's fault.
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> la cie doesn't make the disks. they buy them from disk
    > >>>>>>>> manufacturers.
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> Why is this not a failure of La Cie? Don't they have a choice of
    > >>>>>>> what
    > >>>>>>> vendors to purchase their disks from?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> because la cie does not make the drives.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> very simple.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> if you buy a vehicle and the power steering fails, such as what's the
    > >>>>>> focus of a current recall, is it your fault or the car maker's fault?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Yes...
    > >>>>> Ford's more likely to cut corners on quality than Mercedes. Just as an
    > >>>>> example...
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Even though they don't mean to, Mercedes cuts more corners on quality
    > >>>> than either Toyota or Honda.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> See for example
    > >>>> http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/reliability-108/vs-E-Class-186
    > >>>
    > >>> Absolutely meaningless 'statistics'. Not only are the numbers miniscule,
    > >>> it's a self selecting group.
    > >>> Hogwash.
    > >>
    > >> I wouldn't condemn it as heavily as all that. I was actually looking
    > >> for a particular reputable industry-wide survey but I couldn't
    > >> remember it's name (I still can't). But the story it tells is much
    > >> the same.
    > >>

    > > Consumer Reports does a major survey of vehicles. I've looked at it in
    > > the past, but believe you have to subscribe, but I could be off on that.

    >
    > I get online access through my local public library.


    Commie!

    That said, I pay
    > for it through taxes.


    That's what "they" always say!!!
    --
    teleportation kills
    http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
     
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  7. Sandman

    android Guest

    In article <>,
    PeterN <> wrote:

    > On 6/2/2014 4:15 AM, android wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > >
    > > Take a seat so to speak. Put yourself behind the drivers wheel in a
    > > showroom and you know why a Mercedes costs significantly more than a
    > > Ford or Honda. I do think that the Lexuses seem to be nice rides
    > > though...
    > >

    >
    > There is a big difference between sitting in a car in a showroom and
    > taking it out on the road for a few days. (I used to rent a car before I
    > bought it. The average fifteen minute test drive is inadequate. Sitting
    > in the showroom is ony good for eliminating ease of access issues.
    >
    > INHO For my purposes the Lexus RX350 is one of the better riding cars,
    > in its category. I test drove similar models of the Mercedes, Accura and
    > BMW. The Accura didn't come close, and the other two were not worth the
    > difference in price.


    Cheepooo!
    --
    teleportation kills
    http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography
     
    android, Jun 3, 2014
  8. Sandman

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, 30 May 2014 15:27:39 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <300520141008524991%>, nospam wrote:


    > > they do make the power supplies though, and they're generally not

    >
    > > that reliable.

    >
    >
    >
    > Which is why I'm looking for a bus-powered solution.


    And why I decided to go with 'internal drives' drives and a docking station..

    it's Only USB2/USB3 I don't think there's a thunderbold docking station version yet, well not within my £50 budget.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 3, 2014
  9. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Sandman
    <> wrote:

    > > > > Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will in
    > > > > fact speed up processing?
    > > >
    > > > Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    > > > reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    > > > processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.

    > >
    > > it does if it's i/o bound.

    >
    > Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.


    it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive, which for
    graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster hard drives
    speed up photoshop.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
  10. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <030620141216145936%>, nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, Sandman


    > > > > > John McWilliams:
    > > > > > Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will
    > > > > > in fact speed up processing?
    > > > >
    > > > > Sandman:
    > > > > Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    > > > > reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    > > > > processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.
    > > >
    > > > nospam:
    > > > it does if it's i/o bound.

    > >
    > > Sandman:
    > > Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.

    >
    > it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive


    Then it's not processing. CPU benchmarks does not include media speed. On
    the topic of photography processing, we're speaking of processing data that
    is in RAM, and unless you're working with gigapixel images, all photos you
    have will fit in RAM in today's machines. There may be a delay for the data
    to be read from the disk to RAM, but that's not part of processing.

    > which for graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster hard
    > drives speed up photoshop.


    You have to have very VERY large photoshop documents open in order to make
    it swap RAM to disk and thus include disk speed in the processing speed.
    For a normal photographer, this is never the case. Once the file is open in
    Photoshop, it is in RAM and the processing Photoshop does is not limited
    by, or sped up by, the speed of the disk.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jun 3, 2014
  11. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 10:31 AM, android wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > PeterN <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/2/2014 4:15 AM, android wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Take a seat so to speak. Put yourself behind the drivers wheel in a
    >>> showroom and you know why a Mercedes costs significantly more than a
    >>> Ford or Honda. I do think that the Lexuses seem to be nice rides
    >>> though...
    >>>

    >>
    >> There is a big difference between sitting in a car in a showroom and
    >> taking it out on the road for a few days. (I used to rent a car before I
    >> bought it. The average fifteen minute test drive is inadequate. Sitting
    >> in the showroom is ony good for eliminating ease of access issues.
    >>
    >> INHO For my purposes the Lexus RX350 is one of the better riding cars,
    >> in its category. I test drove similar models of the Mercedes, Accura and
    >> BMW. The Accura didn't come close, and the other two were not worth the
    >> difference in price.

    >
    > Cheepooo!
    >

    \

    Yup!

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  12. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Sandman
    <> wrote:

    > > > > > > John McWilliams:
    > > > > > > Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will
    > > > > > > in fact speed up processing?
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Sandman:
    > > > > > Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    > > > > > reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    > > > > > processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.
    > > > >
    > > > > nospam:
    > > > > it does if it's i/o bound.
    > > >
    > > > Sandman:
    > > > Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.

    > >
    > > it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive

    >
    > Then it's not processing.


    it absolutely is processing, but starved for data so it's limited in
    how fast it can do it.

    > CPU benchmarks does not include media speed.


    cpu benchmarks are meaningless in the real world because they ignore
    everything else that matters.

    > On
    > the topic of photography processing, we're speaking of processing data that
    > is in RAM, and unless you're working with gigapixel images, all photos you
    > have will fit in RAM in today's machines. There may be a delay for the data
    > to be read from the disk to RAM, but that's not part of processing.


    of course it's part of the processing.

    you're focused on individual aspects, not the big picture.

    > > which for graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster hard
    > > drives speed up photoshop.

    >
    > You have to have very VERY large photoshop documents open in order to make
    > it swap RAM to disk and thus include disk speed in the processing speed.
    > For a normal photographer, this is never the case. Once the file is open in
    > Photoshop, it is in RAM and the processing Photoshop does is not limited
    > by, or sped up by, the speed of the disk.


    incorrect.

    one of the best ways to speed up photoshop is use a faster hard drive,
    which is why many hard core photoshop users use raid arrays and more
    recently, ssd.

    photoshop maintains multiple buffers in memory for speed and other
    reasons, which means that images will use a *lot* more memory than they
    might first appear.

    if you have a slower drive, it will affect the overall performance.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
  13. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 12:16 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Sandman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will in
    >>>>> fact speed up processing?
    >>>>
    >>>> Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    >>>> reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    >>>> processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.
    >>>
    >>> it does if it's i/o bound.

    >>
    >> Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.

    >
    > it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive, which for
    > graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster hard drives
    > speed up photoshop.
    >


    OMG Hell freezes over. nospam agrees with something I said.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  14. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 1:00 PM, Sandman wrote:
    > In article <030620141216145936%>, nospam wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Sandman

    >
    >>>>>> John McWilliams:
    >>>>>> Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will
    >>>>>> in fact speed up processing?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sandman:
    >>>>> Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    >>>>> reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    >>>>> processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.
    >>>>
    >>>> nospam:
    >>>> it does if it's i/o bound.
    >>>
    >>> Sandman:
    >>> Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.

    >>
    >> it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive

    >
    > Then it's not processing. CPU benchmarks does not include media speed. On
    > the topic of photography processing, we're speaking of processing data that
    > is in RAM, and unless you're working with gigapixel images, all photos you
    > have will fit in RAM in today's machines. There may be a delay for the data
    > to be read from the disk to RAM, but that's not part of processing.
    >
    >> which for graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster hard
    >> drives speed up photoshop.

    >
    > You have to have very VERY large photoshop documents open in order to make
    > it swap RAM to disk and thus include disk speed in the processing speed.
    > For a normal photographer, this is never the case. Once the file is open in
    > Photoshop, it is in RAM and the processing Photoshop does is not limited
    > by, or sped up by, the speed of the disk.
    >
    >


    So what does PS use a scratch disk for?


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  15. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    In article <030620141408002091%>, Scott Schuckert
    <> wrote:

    > > > You have to have very VERY large photoshop documents open in order to
    > > > make
    > > > it swap RAM to disk and thus include disk speed in the processing speed.
    > > > For a normal photographer, this is never the case. Once the file is open
    > > > in
    > > > Photoshop, it is in RAM and the processing Photoshop does is not limited
    > > > by, or sped up by, the speed of the disk.

    > >
    > > incorrect.
    > >
    > > one of the best ways to speed up photoshop is use a faster hard drive,
    > > which is why many hard core photoshop users use raid arrays and more
    > > recently, ssd.
    > >
    > > photoshop maintains multiple buffers in memory for speed and other
    > > reasons, which means that images will use a *lot* more memory than they
    > > might first appear.
    > >
    > > if you have a slower drive, it will affect the overall performance.

    >
    > Yeah, no - old news. Typical factory memory configurations have grown
    > far faster than Photoshops memory needs. Unless you have an ancient
    > setup that's unnaturally short on RAM, the only thing a fast drive will
    > do is speed up saving files, and to a slightly lesser extent, opening
    > them.


    both of which are part of the workflow.

    however, you're forgetting about the scratch buffers that photoshop
    maintains, which do *not* all fit in memory unless your image is
    unusually small.

    you're also forgetting about memory bandwidth in getting data into the
    processor to calculate whatever and then back to memory when it's done.
    most of what photoshop does are simple calculations (e.g., adjust
    brightness) on a *lot* of pixels which makes it i/o bound, not cpu
    bound.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
  16. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/3/2014 1:47 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, Sandman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>>> John McWilliams:
    >>>>>>> Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will
    >>>>>>> in fact speed up processing?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Sandman:
    >>>>>> Speed up processing? What processing? I want to speed up the
    >>>>>> reading and writing of files. Processing is done with the
    >>>>>> processor, and has nothing to do with the speed of the drives.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> nospam:
    >>>>> it does if it's i/o bound.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sandman:
    >>>> Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.
    >>>
    >>> it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive

    >>
    >> Then it's not processing.

    >
    > it absolutely is processing, but starved for data so it's limited in
    > how fast it can do it.
    >
    >> CPU benchmarks does not include media speed.

    >
    > cpu benchmarks are meaningless in the real world because they ignore
    > everything else that matters.
    >
    >> On
    >> the topic of photography processing, we're speaking of processing data that
    >> is in RAM, and unless you're working with gigapixel images, all photos you
    >> have will fit in RAM in today's machines. There may be a delay for the data
    >> to be read from the disk to RAM, but that's not part of processing.

    >
    > of course it's part of the processing.
    >
    > you're focused on individual aspects, not the big picture.


    I'm sure you did not intend that pun.

    >
    >>> which for graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster hard
    >>> drives speed up photoshop.

    >>
    >> You have to have very VERY large photoshop documents open in order to make
    >> it swap RAM to disk and thus include disk speed in the processing speed.
    >> For a normal photographer, this is never the case. Once the file is open in
    >> Photoshop, it is in RAM and the processing Photoshop does is not limited
    >> by, or sped up by, the speed of the disk.

    >
    > incorrect.
    >
    > one of the best ways to speed up photoshop is use a faster hard drive,
    > which is why many hard core photoshop users use raid arrays and more
    > recently, ssd.
    >
    > photoshop maintains multiple buffers in memory for speed and other
    > reasons, which means that images will use a *lot* more memory than they
    > might first appear.
    >




    > if you have a slower drive, it will affect the overall performance.
    >



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 3, 2014
  17. Sandman

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> On
    > >> the topic of photography processing, we're speaking of processing data that
    > >> is in RAM, and unless you're working with gigapixel images, all photos you
    > >> have will fit in RAM in today's machines. There may be a delay for the data
    > >> to be read from the disk to RAM, but that's not part of processing.

    > >
    > > of course it's part of the processing.
    > >
    > > you're focused on individual aspects, not the big picture.

    >
    > I'm sure you did not intend that pun.


    actually i did.
     
    nospam, Jun 3, 2014
  18. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <030620141347304473%>, nospam wrote:

    > > > > > nospam:
    > > > > > it does if it's i/o bound.
    > > > >
    > > > > Sandman:
    > > > > Processing isn't i/o bound to the disk drive.
    > > >
    > > > nospam:
    > > > it is when it's waiting on data to or from the disk drive

    > >
    > > Sandman:
    > > Then it's not processing.

    >
    > it absolutely is processing, but starved for data so it's limited in
    > how fast it can do it.


    If it is waiting, it is not processing. It's a binary state. It is either
    processing data or it is not. It can't process data "slow" due to disk
    speed, disk speed only affects the time it takes to move data into the
    memory space it needs to be in order to be processed.

    A processor works at a given frequency, regardless of disk speed. If the
    CPU is "waiting" for data, it is not processing data. Those are two
    seperate tasks.

    > > Sandman:
    > > CPU benchmarks does not include media speed.

    >
    > cpu benchmarks are meaningless in the real world because they ignore
    > everything else that matters.


    That doesn't change the facts.

    > > Sandman:
    > > On the topic of photography processing, we're speaking of
    > > processing data that is in RAM, and unless you're working with
    > > gigapixel images, all photos you have will fit in RAM in today's
    > > machines. There may be a delay for the data to be read from the
    > > disk to RAM, but that's not part of processing.

    >
    > of course it's part of the processing.


    Incorrect.

    > you're focused on individual aspects, not the big picture.


    No, I am focused on the original question:

    John McWilliams
    05/30/2014 <lmabna$ulq$>

    "Are you quite sure that the speed of an external drive will
    in fact speed up processing? Last time I looked into it, the
    answer was no, but times change, and processing methods move
    about as well."

    An external, or internal, drive won't "speed up processing" or "processing
    methods", since both processing and processing methods are seperate from
    the drive speed.

    > > > nospam:
    > > > which for graphics, is almost always the case. that's why faster
    > > > hard drives speed up photoshop.

    > >
    > > Sandman:
    > > You have to have very VERY large photoshop documents open in order
    > > to make it swap RAM to disk and thus include disk speed in the
    > > processing speed. For a normal photographer, this is never the
    > > case. Once the file is open in Photoshop, it is in RAM and the
    > > processing Photoshop does is not limited by, or sped up by, the
    > > speed of the disk.

    >
    > incorrect.


    No, correct.

    > one of the best ways to speed up photoshop is use a faster hard
    > drive, which is why many hard core photoshop users use raid arrays
    > and more recently, ssd.


    No, you are only speeding up the time it takes Photoshop to read and write
    the file, not to process it.

    > photoshop maintains multiple buffers in memory for speed and other
    > reasons, which means that images will use a *lot* more memory than
    > they might first appear.


    But Photoshop need to be pushed EXTREMELY hard in order to swap that to
    disk. A normal photographer is never ever anywhere near that limit.

    > if you have a slower drive, it will affect the overall performance.


    But not processing.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jun 3, 2014
  19. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <030620141416359210%>, nospam wrote:

    > > Scott Schuckert:
    > > Yeah, no - old news. Typical factory memory configurations have
    > > grown far faster than Photoshops memory needs. Unless you have an
    > > ancient setup that's unnaturally short on RAM, the only thing a
    > > fast drive will do is speed up saving files, and to a slightly
    > > lesser extent, opening them.

    >
    > both of which are part of the workflow.


    But not part of the processing, which is one part of the workflow, which is
    what takes place inside Photoshop (or Lightroom or Aperture or whatever)
    after you have opened the file.

    > however, you're forgetting about the scratch buffers that photoshop
    > maintains, which do *not* all fit in memory unless your image is
    > unusually small.


    Photoshop will *only* use a scratch disk if it runs out of RAM, never
    before. And with todays computers, Photoshop will never run out of RAM
    while working on photos from normal photographers.

    I have 8GB of RAM in this iMac, which is hardly unusually large, Photoshop
    by default only use 5GB. Without any files, PS use 152MB of RAM on my
    system. If I open a single RAW file from my D800E, which is a 36MP photo,
    the RAM usage comes up to a whopping 257MB. Even if we account for double
    that RAM when adding some layer effects and whatnot, you could still open
    25 such images in Photoshop before you got close to the RAM limit.

    > you're also forgetting about memory bandwidth in getting data into
    > the processor to calculate whatever and then back to memory when
    > it's done. most of what photoshop does are simple calculations
    > (e.g., adjust brightness) on a *lot* of pixels which makes it i/o
    > bound, not cpu bound.


    But not *disk* bound. Fast RAM is *essential* to processing.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Jun 3, 2014
  20. On 6/3/14 PDT, 7:01 AM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 6/1/2014 10:12 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
    >> On 6/1/14 PDT, 12:29 PM, PeterN wrote:
    >>> On 6/1/2014 12:20 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> As Wile E. Coyote knows, it is best to be wary of Acme Corp. products.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> A well known international law firm was not the least bit suspicious
    >>> when it purchased a non-existent residential housing complex for several
    >>> million dollars. The name of the property manager was Wylie Coyote.
    >>>

    >> Please, tell us more!
    >>

    > Every so often I am tempted to write a book about that. The only reason
    > I don't is that it could embarrass the swindler's family. The swindler
    > is long passed.


    How 'bout a Q+D version, names elided....?
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 4, 2014
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dragon

    Thunderbolt R3 with english Dubbed

    Dragon, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    547
    Dragon
    Apr 13, 2004
  2. Cass

    High capacity Bus powered USB Harddrives

    Cass, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    474
  3. LoXodonte

    Address Bus and External Data Bus Confusion

    LoXodonte, Apr 6, 2006, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,875
    LoXodonte
    Apr 18, 2006
  4. Sir To You

    Seagate 1TB drive problems

    Sir To You, Jan 15, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    6,492
    ~misfit~
    Jan 26, 2009
  5. Becky

    Intel SSD 910 PCI Express SSD Performance

    Becky, May 4, 2012, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,194
    Becky
    May 4, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page