Lightroom Classic 9.2: Import slow

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 months ago
  • (Edited)
Imports became extremely slow. During imports LR gets irresponsive. The drive that is holding the catalogue is working like crazy (Previews.lrdata folders). Why? What's all that hard work on the catalogue? Didn't use to be like that before. I am waiting hours for a dozen images.

Lightroom Classic version: 9.2 [ 202001311240-2d026470 ]
License: Creative Cloud
Language setting: en
Operating system: Windows 10 - Home Premium Edition
Version: 10.0.18363
Application architecture: x64
System architecture: x64
Logical processor count: 6
Processor speed: 3,3 GHz
SqLite Version: 3.30.1
Built-in memory: 16367,0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 16367,0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 2851,0 MB (17,4%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 5795,5 MB
GDI objects count: 1152
USER objects count: 3062
Process handles count: 2899
Memory cache size: 1449,7MB
Internal Camera Raw version: 12.2 [ 384 ]
Maximum thread count used by Camera Raw: 4
Camera Raw SIMD optimization: SSE2,AVX
Camera Raw virtual memory: 898MB / 8183MB (10%)
Camera Raw real memory: 900MB / 16367MB (5%)
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Desktop composition enabled: Yes
Displays: 1) 1920x1200, 2) 1920x1200
Input types: Multitouch: No, Integrated touch: No, Integrated pen: No, External touch: No, External pen: No, Keyboard: No

Graphics Processor Info:
DirectX: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (26.21.14.4120)

Any idea beyond getting a SSD for the catalogue?

Best
Henrik
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes

Posted 3 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
I don't have this problem. My configuration:
  • NVMe for the OS, not really important as nothing but the OS and software library is on this drive so it only affects the startup time of Lightroom. 
  • SSD in an adapter on PCIe slot for the Lightroom library, catalog and cache, RAPID mode turned on. 4 times faster with RAPID mode. Samsung 2TB EVO, nothing else on the drive. 
  • Standard Preview Size: Auto (3840px), Preview Quality: High
  • Smart Previews: Total Size 1GB 
  • Automatically write changes into XMP so all RAW imports (I only shoot RAW) also have to generate and write a XMP file 
System:
  • HP Z440, Xeon 3.6/4GHz 6-core 
  • 64GB RAM 
  • Quadro K1200 video card 
  • dual 4K monitors 
I can import thousands of RAW images per hour, Olympus and Fuji. No slowdown with the update to 9.2, faster than 9.1. 9.2 has a bunch of new bugs but nothing serious and nothing that affected speed on my machine. 
  

Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Well, you have the main bits on an SSD already and way more power, so your system doesn't really compare. Thank you nonetheless.
My point is that LR worked really well before. Then the imports got slow. Can't really say which version brought the effect, I am not really a heavy user and was willing to live with it as it was - until yesterday the import drove me half crazy.
I know, my system is probably to be considered "old". Still I think the availability of more and more power shouldn't lead to careless waste of resources - and the fact that LR seemed to touch almost every file in the preview-folders during import looked wrong.
If I am the only one seeing this, I guess I may have to analse further, maybe will reinstall from scratch, maybe will rebuild catalogues (sigh).
Photo of Philippe Coudé du Foresto

Philippe Coudé du Foresto

  • 97 Posts
  • 34 Reply Likes
Do you have the same performance problem if you manually copy some files to this disk?
Just to determine if the problem is limited to LR or is caused by the disk.
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
No, superfast (well, in comparison) when copying manually. I just tried. The card reader seems to be the bottleneck then, I get 18,4 MB/s, which is way faster than what LR is delivering.
Photo of Brian Pierce

Brian Pierce

  • 73 Posts
  • 24 Reply Likes
Drive failing ?  make a backup - then runs some tests on the drive itself
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
Don't think so, looks fine. I'll run tests nonetheless - better safe than sorry.
Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Recommend: run CrystalDiskMark. For an internal hard drive, my results:
  • 8TB Western Digital drive
  • 155 MB/sec sequential read per second
  • 150 MB/sec sequential write per second
  • 1.3 MB/sec random read per second 
  • 1.1 MB/sec random write per second
For the Samsung 2TB EVO with RAPID mode active:
  • 5,329 MB/sec sequential read per second
  • 5,674 MB/sec sequential write per second
  • 3,668 MB/sec random read per second 
  • 1,660 MB/sec random write per second
Conclusion: for writing small files, the SSD is over 1,000 times faster. 
 
The overall I/O results for my system:  sorry for the poor alignment but this forum doesn't allow a choice of fonts. Easier to read if copies/pasted into notepad. 

     Crystal Disk Mark tests
     ----------------------- 
       -sequential-    -random- 
drive  read   write  read   write  
-----   -----  ----- -----  -----  
C      2,050  1,644    705    710  
F        537    517    218    220  
P      5,329  5,674  3,668  1,660   --RAPID mode on--   
W        536    516    212    428  
G        155    150    1.3    1.1 
H        130    116    1.3     .9 
I         44     41     15     22 
L        142    124    1.4     .8
 
Read/Write are in megabytes/second 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Drive Configuration 
        -------------------
 
drive    TB   drive  conn  use
-----   -----  ----- ----  ----------------
C        .5   NVMe   PCIe  OS, Programs
F       2.0   SSD    SATA  Google Drive 
P       2.0   SSD    PCIe  Lightroom Library
W       1.0   SSD    SATA  Lightroom cache, work 
G       8.0   HD     SATA  videos, music 
H       8.0   HD     SATA  internal backup 
I        .5   SSD    USB3  Drive-C backup 
L       8.0   HD     USB3  external backup 
 


Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I will run some tests. Thank you for you reference values. I am aware that SSDs are way faster. And they are getting more affordable as well. Still confused by the behaviour I was observing. What is LR doing during an import? Why touch all previews?
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
These are the results of the drive in question. Not fast, but fair for a spindle.
[Read]
Sequential 1MiB (Q=  8, T= 1):   104.648 MB/s [     99.8 IOPS] < 79028.83 us>
Sequential 1MiB (Q=  1, T= 1):   102.550 MB/s [     97.8 IOPS] < 10204.38 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16):     0.784 MB/s [    191.4 IOPS] <765081.21 us>
Random 4KiB (Q=  1, T= 1):     0.375 MB/s [     91.6 IOPS] < 10863.63 us>

[Write]
Sequential 1MiB (Q=  8, T= 1):   119.114 MB/s [    113.6 IOPS] < 69596.98 us>
Sequential 1MiB (Q=  1, T= 1):   113.665 MB/s [    108.4 IOPS] <  9188.63 us>
Random 4KiB (Q= 32, T=16):     1.009 MB/s [    246.3 IOPS] <738922.26 us>
Random 4KiB (Q=  1, T= 1):     1.075 MB/s [    262.5 IOPS] <  3739.30 us>

Profile: Default
   Test: 1 GiB (x5) [Interval: 5 sec] <DefaultAffinity=DISABLED>
   Date: 2020/03/29 13:55:52
     OS: Windows 10  [10.0 Build 18363] (x64)

S.M.A.R.T. shows no signs of significant decay.

I'll get me an SSD, seems to be the only viable solution.

Photo of Bill

Bill

  • 258 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Have you tried copying the files from the memory card to a folder on your computer before importing into Lightroom? I always copy from the memory card into the final folder for that event and then import with the ADD option. 
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
@Bill: not yet, as it worked well before via LR. But I will definitely try with the next batch of photos. So far I tried just the copying bit, that was faster indeed. But that was to be expected, as LR does some addional things during import.
Photo of Henrik Zawischa

Henrik Zawischa

  • 100 Posts
  • 7 Reply Likes
I moved the catalogue to a different drive, so it is separated from the photos themselves now. Seems to have brought some improvement. Which would be plausible, as apparently LR was writing some previews at the same time as it was writing photos - which on a classic HDD could slow down things quite a bit due to frequent head repositioning etc. Random vs sequential writes.
That would also explain Bill's observation that copying photos first, then importing them via ADD rather than MOVE is faster. The conflict is avoided.