1TB external bus-powered SSD drive with Thunderbolt?

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

  1. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    His There ate too many people who know what happened and it would bring
    back painful memories to his family. His son used to work for me, and
    his brother was a client. They are all good people, who could feel hurt
    emotionally hurt.
    PeterN, Jun 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    that's nothing more than word games.

    if the processor is starved for data because something is i/o bound,
    then things are slower and the user is less productive.
    it's what the facts mean that matters.
    it's absolutely correct.
    a faster hard drive absolutely will speed things up if what's being
    done is i/o bound, which is almost always the case with photoshop.

    that's why it's generally the #1 thing adobe suggests to do after
    increasing memory, which has an upper limit depending on the design of
    the computer.
    not that hard at all to have it access the swap file.
    you're playing word games.
    Guest, Jun 4, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    it's all part of the processing. you're playing word games.

    what matters is how long it takes for the user to do what they want to
    do, not how long each individual component by itself takes.
    photoshop *always* uses scratch disk for a wide variety of things.
    completely wrong and you have *no* way of knowing what is used by
    photoshop's internal buffers.

    photoshop has its own memory management system, so looking at the
    system's stats isn't going to tell you much of anything.
    i said i/o bound. memory is i/o.
    Guest, Jun 4, 2014
  4. So use spinning rust and don't drop it while it's running. There's at
    least a few more years before flash memory becomes cheaper than magnetic

    If you're thinking that you need SSD because you're running MacOS, then
    it's really MacOS that's the problem. The filesystem is ancient, tuned
    my morons, and is completely overwhelmed by all the junk features of the
    past few releases. Downgrade to 10.6.8 or invest some time in getting
    Linux or Windows running. Few uses see significant performance gains
    with an SSD. Databases - yes, video rendering - yes, impact resistance
    - yes, photo editing - no.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 4, 2014
  5. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    ssd is not going to be cheaper than magnetic media for a very long
    time, if ever.
    nonsense. complete utter nonsense.
    Guest, Jun 4, 2014
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    True - which isn't the case with digital photo processing. At no point is
    the CPU "halted" waiting for data due to a slow hard drive when post
    processing photos. When you open a photo in Photoshop, there may be a delay
    while the data is being read from disk, but at that point in time, the CPU
    isn't working with the data.
    Incorrect. Reading data from disk is not processing, not technically, and
    not when considering a photo editing workflow. Processing takes places when
    the data is read from disk, not before.

    You may have a workflow that opens up images in Alien Skin's Exposure, adds
    a special color tone to it and returns to Lightroom. If you have a super
    slow disk you may have to wait for several seconds for the image to open in
    Exposure, and few - if any - would consider this wait to be part of them
    processing their photos.
    It is never the case with Photoshop, especially not when talking about
    common photography. All photos from professional and consumer cameras fit
    in RAM at all times.
    Cite from Adobe recommending getting a faster disk to speed up Photoshop
    image processing?
    I.e. I am being factual. The topic was processing, not "overall
    performance". You're the one that introduced "overall performance", not me.
    I was merely taking the topic back to what I was respoding to and is thus
    talking about.

    If I say that processing won't be sped up by faster drives and you reply by
    saying that I am incorrect and that "overall performance" WILL be sped up
    with faster drives, then I am not the one playing word games.

    "Processing" is either the act of post-processing your photos on a more
    general level, or it is the act of processing data done by the CPU.

    Since there is no question that processing data by the CPU has no relation
    at all to the hard drive, I assume you want to turn this into a more
    "general processing of photos" and whether or not faster disks will speed
    that workflow up.

    While I disagree that this was the original question, I'm not sure I would
    agree that processing of photos is quicker with faster drives, unless we're
    talking about a batch-based workflow where you edit hundreds of photos the
    exact same way.

    I.e. The time it takes to read the file from disk is insignificant in
    relation to the manual processing you do in applications. If it takes a
    second ot open a photo in Photoshop and a second to save it, that's nothing
    compared to all the seconds you spend using menues, nevigating dialog boxes
    and everything else not related to actual processing. Cutting those two
    seconds down to 0.5 seconds really doesn't speed up that workflow in any
    significant way.

    Now, if you're batch-editing, then the disk speed is really important.
    Sandman, Jun 4, 2014
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    This isn't about price, which wasn't a parameter. I want a fast disk that
    is mobile - something mechanical media can not deliver.
    Huh?? I want SSD because it's super-fast. That has nothing to do with MacOS
    (other than the fact that I want Thunderbolt which still is pretty much
    Mac-only. Also, superfast)
    Haha, talk about clueless.
    WTF? I want to use my computer, not play games or... run a SQL database.
    You just went from clueless to complete moron.
    Who talked about any of that?
    Sandman, Jun 4, 2014
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Sandman, Jun 4, 2014
  9. Says the fool thinking an SSD is needed for photo editing. Try running
    'fs_usage' next time your computer feels slow.

    HFS+ has poor concurrency and caching yet Apple has been completely
    overloading it with junk features - Bundles, Auto Save, Versions, Mobile
    Time Machine, Spotlight, completely broken Finder pre-caching, broken
    journaling (HFS+J), broken caching, and a mess of daemon processes that
    perform polling. As you can see from diagnostic utilities, most Apple
    apps are disabling caching to avoid bugs.

    You can fanboi all you want but it doesn't make MacOS faster. The
    feature list for the next MacOS is out and I/O performance isn't on it.
    Continue on your quest to buy extremely expensive hardware if you'd
    like. It's your time and money.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 4, 2014
  10. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I know of no such person.
    No need.
    Now you've gone from moron to imbecile. You shouldn't talk about things you
    know nothing about.
    You can lie all you want, it doesn't make MacOS slower.
    You think SSD's are "extremeley expensive"?? Sucks to be you.
    Sandman, Jun 4, 2014
  11. Sandman

    -hh Guest

    True, but there are issues with their sampling techniques
    which limit its utility. For eample, the way that it is
    done doesn't eliminate self-selection bias. Next, because
    it is owner-based reporting, there's also inconsistencies
    between reporting threshholds. Finally, their internal
    inconsistencies in editorial content creates a potential
    conflict statistically (undue influence).

    For an example of the 2nd/3rd points, CR is very much
    of the editorial position that automobiles are mere
    appliances .. they've trashed things like a 2 seater
    sportscar for it lacking back seat or trunk, for example.
    As such, they create a bias on their readers for what
    factors are more/less important, which will invariably
    influence those customers' subsequent survey results.

    Similarly, there's certain vehicle marquees which tend to
    attract certain customer demographics and these differences
    will bias the reporting too: if you think of the detailed-
    oriented customer and car enthusiast to report on expenses,
    he'll detail $83.27 for the oil change on 23 Feb, the $2.69
    spent on windhield washer on 3 March, the $23.79 for wiper
    blades, and even the $7.89 can of Carnuba Wax...functionally,
    this is an over-report. In the meantime, Mrs. Soccer Mom
    forgets about last spring's $500 service and barely remembers
    at all the $2000 bill for when the transmission blew up, so
    this consumer demographic tends to under-report.

    FYI, the only way to fix this flaw in their surveying method
    is to have a professional researcher review the records, so as
    to provide consistency in the report threshholding criteria.

    The local public library often has a magazine subscription,
    so when you really want to see what they have, you can go
    read it for free.

    ....but you can still expect to get burned with some bad
    recommendations. I'd say that our track record was around
    a 20% "Horribly Bad" advisement rate before we caught on
    (and dropped paying for a subscription).

    -hh, Jun 4, 2014
  12. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    the cpu absolutely is working with the data and at no point is the cpu
    then why are you arguing?
    you're playing word games. the processor must request which blocks to
    read off the drive into memory and wait for that to complete. it also
    has to move the data from memory into its internal registers, do
    whatever calculations and write it back out.

    if the calculations are complex and the i/o is not a significant
    portion then it's cpu bound. if the calculations are simple and the i/o
    is a significant portion, then it's i/o bound. ideally you want a
    balance but that isn't always possible.
    you have that backwards. just about everyone would consider the opening
    and closing as part of the processing. you can't process something
    which you have not yet opened.
    the photo might but not all of the other stuff, including multiple
    buffers, cache, undo history, etc.
    here's one:
    When Photoshop needs more memory than that available, it uses a
    portion of the hard drive as virtual memory or scratch disks. This
    process allows you to work with large image changes that exceed the
    capacity of your system RAM. The more hard-drive space available and
    the faster the drive access speed, the more efficient this process
    becomes. As a rule of thumb, aim for hard drives with faster disk
    rotation (usually classified in RPM) and faster read/write speeds. If
    you have the budget, then take a look at SSDs. Ideally, you should
    use a dedicated, empty hard drive that is not your startup disk, but
    if empty drives are not possible, at least make sure that the free
    space on your scratch disks is not fragmented.
    wrong. just look at what's being read and written to the hard drive.
    word games.
    if something is i/o bound, which most things are these days because
    processors are ridiculously fast and memory has not kept pace, then a
    faster drive and/or faster memory can easily speed things up. on the
    other hand, if it's cpu-bound, then it won't.
    it's always important.
    Guest, Jun 5, 2014
  13. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    processing speed is a key part of that.
    how long it takes for the user is the *only* parameter that matters.
    it's absolutely correct.

    just where do you think all the history states and undo caches go? kept
    in memory??
    now read a bit further.
    Each history state or snapshot in the History panel increases the
    amount of scratch disk space that Photoshop uses.  The more pixels an
    operation changes, the more scratch space the corresponding history
    state consumes.
    Undo, the Clipboard, and History states all hold image data. To free
    up RAM, choose Edit > Purge and then Undo, Clipboard, Histories, or

    in other words, every step you do is going to hit the scratch drive.

    the slower that process is, the slower it will be to complete the

    you may not notice it for simple things like brightness, contrast, etc.
    but that doesn't mean you won't ever notice it.
    it can easily be the case.

    you are looking at only the single image size and not all of the
    associated buffers and other stuff photoshop maintains per image.

    and it's quite common to open two images (or more) at a time so now the
    memory pressure has doubled.

    good luck for panorama photographers.
    you were not.
    not by looking at the system's activity monitor you can't, because
    photoshop has its own virtual memory system and there's no way to see
    that with the system tools.

    the way to do it is with photoshop's efficiency indicator. only then
    can you tell.
    activity monitor will *not* tell you if photoshop is using the scratch

    photoshop has its own vm system separate from the operating system and
    specifically tuned for image processing, which is yet another reason
    why it's as fast as it is.
    what i originally said was i/o bound.

    memory bandwidth is part of that but the disk is where it hurts the
    most because disks are slow.

    the fastest speeds is if the data is in the cpu registers, followed by
    cache, then memory and then the hard drive.

    today's processors are often i/o bound.
    Guest, Jun 5, 2014
  14. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    consumer reports are a bunch of blithering idiots.

    whenever they review products i know about, it's clear they haven't any
    idea what they're doing, so i can only assume that they make similar
    mistakes on products i don't know about.
    Guest, Jun 5, 2014
  15. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    No, when data is being read from the disk into RAM, the CPU is not working
    with the data in terms of "photo processing".
    That's what I just said.
    I'm not. I'm just telling you the facts. No need to argue anything.
    Incorrect. The CPU doesn't "request blocks". When a file is being opened in
    Photoshop, the file isn't being processed by the CPU. Only when the data is
    in RAM can the CPU work with the data, so the time the I/O controller takes
    to move data from the HDD to RAM is not time where the CPU spends
    "processing data".
    True, but it can only do that when the data is in RAM, at which point the
    speed of the HDD is irrelevant.
    At no point is it HDD bound, which is what was being discussed. The speed
    of RAM and the size of the RAM bus is *crucial* to processing. That has
    never been in question.
    You're contradicting yourself. If opening a file is part of processing a
    photo - then YOU can process something you have not yet opened, since the
    act of opening is part of the processing.

    For obvious reason, I disagree. You can not process something you haven't
    opened - which means that opening the file is not part of processing the
    file, which leads to what I've been saying all along - Processing photos is
    not "slow" or "fast" depending on your drive speed.
    Yes, it will. Everything Photoshop does at all times when processing normal
    photographs will fit into RAM on every computer that is at least five years
    old or newer. This is a fact.
    This is not Adobe saying that you need a faster disk to speed up image
    processing. This is Adobe saying that the scratch disk is used when
    available memory (RAM) is insufficient. As has been showed, this is *NEVER*
    the case when working with normal photos
    Still incorrect.
    In terms of the scratch disk - NOTHING is read and written to the hard
    drive as long as you have sufficient RAM for Photoshop to work in, which
    you always do when post processing normal photos on a modern computer.
    Then it won't, since "processing" is CPU bound, not HDD-bound. Thanks for
    Sandman, Jun 5, 2014
  16. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Just as a monitor is a key part of it as well, but we're not talking about
    monitores either.

    The question was whether or not processing was sped up by using a faster
    hard drive, not whether a image processing workflow is sped up.

    The answer is that no - processing isn't sped up with a faster drive, and
    yes - some image workflows can be sped up with a faster drive, depending on
    the workflow.
    Not to the question that was asked, it wasn't.
    Absolutely. You can even tell yourself. Watch the Efficiency indicator,
    when it's lower than 100%, Photoshop is using the scratch disk. For normal
    photo editing, the scratch disk isn't used at all, and the efficiency level
    is always 100%

    Also, when it DOES swap out image history states to disk, it does so in the
    background and it doesn't interfere with the actual image processing which
    is all kept in RAM. Only if you decide to undo 20 times would you possibly
    have to read data from the disk.
    Only if it can't keep it in RAM. Many image states take very little space.
    Plus - this has nothing to do with image processing, only with the ability
    to undo image processing. All image data you are currently working with is
    kept in RAM.
    Incorrect. As I said, you can check this out yourself.
    Incorrect. Swapping out a history state to disk has no effect on the
    current image processing. It is done in the background and not when i/o is
    being used.

    If you're at 100% efficiency, and use a pixel-level filter on a 36MB TIFF
    file, the image processing takes X amount of CPU cycles, which reads and
    writes to RAM. When done, the history buffer *may* need to be written to
    disk, but this has no effect on the cycles for the CPU for the actual image
    In terms of image processing, you will never notice it. As I said, history
    states that are written to disk will only make something slower at the
    point where you want to access that history state (i.e. hit undo).

    Try it yourself. I just opened a 36MP RAW file in Photoshop on my 4 year
    old iMac with 8GB of RAM, while having a slew of other applications open. I
    cut and moved parts of the image around and hit 95% of efficiency when I
    had done so 14 times.

    I then reverted back to the original state and ran the "Accented Edges"
    filter, which is a pixel filter, I ran it 20 times, so I have 20 versions
    of the 36MP image in the history, the efficiency was at 100% during the
    entire time.

    As I said - normal processing of normal photos will NEVER EVER use the
    scratch disk on a modern computer. It is not a problem.
    Incorrect. Try it for yourself.
    Incorrect, I am looking at all data Photoshop manages.
    Indeed. I just opened 40 36MP images in Photoshop, on my 8GB system.
    Photoshop is now using 2GB of RAM for these photos.

    On these 40 photos, I ran a batch command that ran the Vignette action on
    all photos, adding 5 history states to each and every image and two new
    layers to each image.

    Efficiency: 100%, RAM usage: 3.45GB
    As you can see above, panorama photographers would have no problem what so

    Again, try this for yourself and you'll see. At no point when opening 40
    36MP raw files, and running a batch on them did Photoshop use the scratch
    I was. Just arguing doesn't change reality.
    Yes, I can.
    Photoshop's virtual memory is its scratch disk, which I also can see how
    much is being used. I can thus see exactly how much memory Photoshop is
    using at all times.
    That's what I've been telling you. Photoshop will NEVER use the scratch
    disk unless RAM runs out. So by knowing its RAM limit (Settings ->
    Performace) and see how much RAM it is currently using, you can see whether
    or not it is using the scratch disk. To make sure, check the efficiency
    I never said it did.
    Which wasn't being used in the aforementioned scenario, so it's irrelevant.
    What you originally said is unimportant, you joined a thread that talked
    about hard drive speed. If you wanted to talk about RAM speed, perhaps you
    should start a thread about that instead of talking about it in a thread
    about disk speed?
    Slow disks doesn't affect CPU processing speed.
    The CPU can not access data on the hard drive, only data in RAM.
    It's been that way always. Or rather, it moves back and forth in cycles,
    sometimes RAM is faster, sometimes CPU is faster.
    Sandman, Jun 5, 2014

  17. Actually, I'm a software developer. You're a troll in a digital
    photography newsgroup looking for an SSD drive of possibly non-existent
    specifications. Did you know that spinning rust provides about
    180MB/sec of throughput?
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jun 6, 2014
  18. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    As am I.
    Haha! Did I mention that you're clueless? I've already provided the parts I
    need for such a drive.
    Did you know that I wanted more throughput than that, given the initial
    requirements I provided? Of course not.
    Sandman, Jun 6, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.