Will a SSD benefit LR3 with an external file and catalog?

[aesco48]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>My 640GB 7200rpm hard drive from my Dell XPS15 just bit the dust... Was wondering how much it would improve perormance if I have the original CR2 files on an external USB 3.0 HD and the LightRoom catalog also on the external HD? What if i keept the Catalog on the laptop?<br>

A 256GB Samsung 830 Series SSD is 4+ times more expensive then the Samsung SpinPoint MP4 640 GB - 300 MBps - 7200 rpm that came with the computer....<br>

<br /><br>

Thx!</p>

[aesco48]

<p>I have 8gb of memory in the machine.</p>

[mark_sirota1]

<p>Putting the catalog on the SSD will help catalog-intensive activities in most cases. Note that Develop isn't one of these activities (except, arguably, when working on a large number of images with AutoSync enabled).</p>

[Brad_]

Mark, how about keeping the Camera Raw Cache on SSD?

[scott_ferris]

<p>I have run LR3 and 4 like that, both ways, no the internal SSD made very little difference, if any. I was running two Macs at the time one had 4GB and the other 8GB of RAM. I now have a twin internal laptop as my main computer, it has one SSD with OS and apps, and a 1TB internal that has everything else on it, even then it makes no difference which HDD the files or catalogs are on.</p>

<p>At this point in time SSD's are not worth the extra for most uses.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>Keep an eye on the disk access LED. If it's on much of the time, then a SSD will benefit. It may in fact be the single most useful upgrade you do.</p>

<p>A much less expensive intermediate step is to try Windows 7's TurboBoost feature. This lets Windows automatically cache parts of traditional magnetic drives out to solid state storage. You will need at least 4GB of flash. A fast SDHC will do; much better is a small SSD, say 64GB device, attached to a spare SATA port.</p>

<p>Over time, Windows moves frequently accessed disk blocks onto the flash cache. Random access workloads like the LR catalog should experience the most benefit, probably approaching that of keeping everything on SSD.</p>

[aesco48]

<p>Great thx... I think ill got for a traditional HD and use one of my 16GB SDHC cards...</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>I actually did timed tests before and after I added SSD's to my homebuilt. (2 x Intel x25-m 80GB. 1-OS, 1-swap files/cache, then 2 HDD's for storage).<br>

Bridge's image cache builds *MUCH* faster w/SSD than disk. Other activities are just 2-4% faster.<br>

The bonus with SSD's is in things like system start up, Apps snapping open instantly, being able to run *3* AV full scans at the same time you are doing other things, with almost no slowdown, etc.<br>

I overclocked my PC 50%, but the difference the SSD's made was easily 10 times more noticable. Expensive, but worth it to most users.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I think the SSD made a big difference for loading Windows and apps like Lightroom. I believe previews and other cache type files are also stored on the SSD.<br>

I still store the actual photos on a USB 3 7200RPM drive as I need the space. If you have a decent hard drive captive in an old USB 2.0 shell (as I did), if you can get it out of that, slap it in a Rosewill USB 3.0 or eSata case and notice an immediate improvement (I can share the benchmark tests of the same drive in both housings and how it compares to my SSD if you really care.)</p>