Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On 8/26/2010 8:14 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Regards your crashing problems, your hardware looks up to snuff although I'm not sure why you'd run Win XP 64-bit rather than Win 7 64-bit. Seems to me that Win 7 is a LOT better at 64bit operations than anything out of the XP generation, but then I don't do Windows so perhaps I'm missing some subtleties there. Oh, the reasons are purely tangential. I bought WinXP64 when Win7 wasn't available yet in its final form. In the office my workstation runs WinXP64 so I kind of prefer my work computer (10 hours a day, 5 days a week) to be similar to my home computer. So, there is no any *real* reason, just my laziness and obsession with convenience... ... But you might try moving that storage volume to a local connect and see if you still have crashing problems. If you don't, that's the culprit. I will pay special attention to this local connect suggestion, Godfrey, as it *seems* that once it crashes for the first time I doesn't crash any more until I reboot the computer, which would be well in line with some peculiarity of WinXP64 initialization of net interfaces. (My own system is all direct connection via USB2 and FW400. My 'in progress' catalog file has 78,000 images in it, is about 1.12Gbytes in size. I move too much data for even 1G ethernet to handle efficiently, that's why the direct connections.) I see. Lightroom 2.7 was bit-for-bit identical with Lightroom 2.7 RC. When Adobe puts out an RC version for public consumption, it's typically about a 98% probability that the release will be identical. I've been running on 3.2 RC for the past week, it's very reliable and stable. I've deleted 2.7 and 2.0 from my system now. Oh! Fascinating... Well, and you also suggest, I suppose, that moving from 3.2RC is 3.2Rel is going to be fully seamless... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/26/2010 8:14 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Regards your crashing problems, your hardware looks up to snuff although I'm not sure why you'd run Win XP 64-bit rather than Win 7 64-bit. Seems to me that Win 7 is a LOT better at 64bit operations than anything out of the XP generation, but then I don't do Windows so perhaps I'm missing some subtleties there. Oh, the reasons are purely tangential. I bought WinXP64 when Win7 wasn't available yet in its final form. In the office my workstation runs WinXP64 so I kind of prefer my work computer (10 hours a day, 5 days a week) to be similar to my home computer. So, there is no any *real* reason, just my laziness and obsession with convenience... XP64 is pretty buggy, especially with consumer hardware. MS didn't get a truly usable 64-bit version of Windows out until Vista 64 (Win7 64 is Vista 64 under the hood, there are no significant non-UI differences in the 64 bit version) and driver support for XP 64 is poor. Note that XP 64 is not officially supported by LR, official support is XP SP3, Vista Home Premium or betetr (32 64) and Win7 (32 64). Personally I run XP 32 at work with Themes off and Vista 64 at home, with Themes off. There's not that much in the way of difference aside from Vista's better Explorer and Start menu organization. Both otherwise look and act like Win2000. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On 8/28/2010 4:09 PM, Adam Maas wrote: XP64 is pretty buggy, especially with consumer hardware. MS didn't get a truly usable 64-bit version of Windows out until Vista 64 (Win7 64 is Vista 64 under the hood, there are no significant non-UI differences in the 64 bit version) and driver support for XP 64 is poor. Note that XP 64 is not officially supported by LR, official support is XP SP3, Vista Home Premium or betetr (32 64) and Win7 (32 64). Well, courses for horses, obviously. Both at work and at home XP64 SP2 has been very stable. If it breaks down or if I have to upgrade h/w, I'll give Win7 proper consideration. Meanwhile, especially at home I prefer to adhere to if it ain't broken, don't fix it mantra... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On 8/28/2010 4:09 PM, Adam Maas wrote: XP64 is pretty buggy, especially with consumer hardware. MS didn't get a truly usable 64-bit version of Windows out until Vista 64 (Win7 64 is Vista 64 under the hood, there are no significant non-UI differences in the 64 bit version) and driver support for XP 64 is poor. Note that XP 64 is not officially supported by LR, official support is XP SP3, Vista Home Premium or betetr (32 64) and Win7 (32 64). Well, courses for horses, obviously. Both at work and at home XP64 SP2 has been very stable. If it breaks down or if I have to upgrade h/w, I'll give Win7 proper consideration. Meanwhile, especially at home I prefer to adhere to if it ain't broken, don't fix it mantra... your LR problems suggest that it might be broke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On 8/28/2010 8:39 PM, Bob W wrote: your LR problems suggest that it might be broke. It *might* indeed. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
Thank you for a very detailed response, Godfrey. My reply is interspersed... 1- Which metadata is correct depends upon your workflow and policy. My workflow is such that the correct metadata is always what is in the Lightroom catalog, not what is contained in the original image file, because Lightroom is the only way I *add* metadata to my files. Other applications like Photoshop can append additional metadata to original image files a) if you edit ORIGINAL files with them and b) if you've set the options to do so ... but I turn off all those options and don't edit original image files with anything but Lightroom. Since I don't edit my images anywhere else than in LR and since I also don't have more than one LR version installed on my computer at any time, it is yet unclear to me why LR decided that my MD was incorrect in a way... 2- LR 3.0 crashing ... Are you running in 64-bit or 32-bit? on Windows or Mac OS X? How much RAM is installed on your system? How large is your catalog? How much free disk space is there on the volume where you have the catalog file? and the original image files? Here is the layout... Hardware: 1. Dual core CPU (Intel 8400, if I am not mistaken) 2. 8GB RAM 3. 320 GB system disk 4. 1 TB of Linux storage (RAID-1) connected directly through a separate NIC at 1Gbit. Software: 1. Windows XP 64 bit configured so as to have no swap file whatsoever. 2. LR 3.0 Parameters: 1. Order of 270 GB free on system disk 2. Catalog is about 520 MB in size (approx 33,000 image files managed) 3. About 300 GB free on storage. So it seems from what you say that it has no reasons to run unstable... 3- And, if you are having crashing problems with LR 3.0, why haven't you installed and started working with LR 3.2 RC? I feel hesitant to install any beta/release candidate software no matter how loud they say it is good. Unless absolutely forced to do so, I'd rather stay with LR 3.0 until LR 3.2 becomes a proper release, and not just release candidate. For still photography work, USB2 and FW400 are proving to be good enough, and the improved USB2 performance makes the system much more flexible as to how to organize the hardware connections. The improved IO performance makes it almost a wash, in practical terms, as to whether I site the Lightroom catalog on the same volume as the original image files vs the startup drive.) In my case, LR catalog is on internal HDD where Windows is installed and photos are on external storage. I am open to suggestions, as usual. Boris P.S. All software is properly bought and licensed. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: Since I don't edit my images anywhere else than in LR and since I also don't have more than one LR version installed on my computer at any time, it is yet unclear to me why LR decided that my MD was incorrect in a way... If you use only LR, than it might simply be a matter of internal bookkeeping. Fr instance, if the same photos were incorporated into two different Lightroom catalogs and one made changes, then LR might say that the metadata was changed by an external application. I've seen this on a couple of the catalogs I converted to LR3 (all 22 of mine are now updated to LR3 ... :-). I've simply told LR to overwrite any metadata in any of the in-progress images, and told it to re-import metadata from any of the finished images. No problems yet. 2- LR 3.0 crashing ... Are you running in 64-bit or 32-bit? on Windows or Mac OS X? How much RAM is installed on your system? How large is your catalog? How much free disk space is there on the volume where you have the catalog file? and the original image files? Here is the layout... Hardware: 1. Dual core CPU (Intel 8400, if I am not mistaken) 2. 8GB RAM 3. 320 GB system disk 4. 1 TB of Linux storage (RAID-1) connected directly through a separate NIC at 1Gbit. Software: 1. Windows XP 64 bit configured so as to have no swap file whatsoever. 2. LR 3.0 Parameters: 1. Order of 270 GB free on system disk 2. Catalog is about 520 MB in size (approx 33,000 image files managed) 3. About 300 GB free on storage. So it seems from what you say that it has no reasons to run unstable... 3- And, if you are having crashing problems with LR 3.0, why haven't you installed and started working with LR 3.2 RC? I feel hesitant to install any beta/release candidate software no matter how loud they say it is good. Unless absolutely forced to do so, I'd rather stay with LR 3.0 until LR 3.2 becomes a proper release, and not just release candidate. For still photography work, USB2 and FW400 are proving to be good enough, and the improved USB2 performance makes the system much more flexible as to how to organize the hardware connections. The improved IO performance makes it almost a wash, in practical terms, as to whether I site the Lightroom catalog on the same volume as the original image files vs the startup drive.) In my case, LR catalog is on internal HDD where Windows is installed and photos are on external storage. I am open to suggestions, as usual. Regards your crashing problems, your hardware looks up to snuff although I'm not sure why you'd run Win XP 64-bit rather than Win 7 64-bit. Seems to me that Win 7 is a LOT better at 64bit operations than anything out of the XP generation, but then I don't do Windows so perhaps I'm missing some subtleties there. However, when I have heard of intermittent crashing problems with Windows systems it seems to be 80% of the time connected with networked drive storage for the original image file repository. Most of the problems seem to disappear when the image file repository is connected locally. Again, I've only heard of these things second-hand as, as above, I don't do Windows: it's not my specialty. Mixing a Windows XP 64-bit system with a networked Linux storage system is something I have zero direct experience with. But you might try moving that storage volume to a local connect and see if you still have crashing problems. If you don't, that's the culprit. (My own system is all direct connection via USB2 and FW400. My 'in progress' catalog file has 78,000 images in it, is about 1.12Gbytes in size. I move too much data for even 1G ethernet to handle efficiently, that's why the direct connections.) Lightroom 2.7 was bit-for-bit identical with Lightroom 2.7 RC. When Adobe puts out an RC version for public consumption, it's typically about a 98% probability that the release will be identical. I've been running on 3.2 RC for the past week, it's very reliable and stable. I've deleted 2.7 and 2.0 from my system now. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
1- Which metadata is correct depends upon your workflow and policy. My workflow is such that the correct metadata is always what is in the Lightroom catalog, not what is contained in the original image file, because Lightroom is the only way I *add* metadata to my files. Other applications like Photoshop can append additional metadata to original image files a) if you edit ORIGINAL files with them and b) if you've set the options to do so ... but I turn off all those options and don't edit original image files with anything but Lightroom. On those rare occasions when I do edit metadata in some other application, it is most typically in files which I exported from Lightroom and re-imported, for some reason, then manipulated elsewhere for some other reason. Then I immediately tell LR to reconcile the metadata by re-importing the metadata. I haven't seen any difference in LR performance based on metadata in or out of sync, but it is certainly a better workflow to assure that all metadata in the Lightroom catalog is the most up to date metadata. If you have automatic metadata synching enabled (I do not ... there's no point IMO unless you are doing a lot of combined use of LR with other Creative Suite components that also use the metadata), you might try disabling it to see how that affects LR performance on your system. I found on my G5 system it could put a nearly-full drive containing the original image file repository into a near-thrashing state and certainly slowed all Lightroom operations substantially. * 2- LR 3.0 crashing ... Are you running in 64-bit or 32-bit? on Windows or Mac OS X? How much RAM is installed on your system? How large is your catalog? How much free disk space is there on the volume where you have the catalog file? and the original image files? If you're running in 64-bit and Lightroom is running in 64bit mode, whether Windows or Mac OS X, reports of LR3 problems decrease substantially when system RAM is 8G or above. There's very little point to running 64bit OSes on systems with 4G or less system RAM installed, and LR3 will run more reliably and faster in a 32bit with a 32-bit OS on up to 4G RAM systems. 3- And, if you are having crashing problems with LR 3.0, why haven't you installed and started working with LR 3.2 RC? My Apple Mini system is now outfitted with LR 2.7, 3 and 3.2RC, running 8G system RAM on Mac OS X Snow Leopard, all 64-bit. Both startup (500G) and data drive (1T) have between 40 and 50 per cent free space. v3.0 is slightly slower in operation than both v2.7 and v3.2 RC and, watching the Activity Monitor, seems to work with system memory more efficiently. Most of my editing is now being done in LR 3.2 RC. (Yes, I've seen several small glitches with LR3 and I've filed them as bugs, but overall they're all workflow issues that are easily worked around.) (* side note: new system performance ... One interesting system difference between the Apple Mini and the G5 tower is in file system IO performance through the different hardware interfaces. USB 2 has been significantly optimized over the G5's USB 2 implementation ... it's now on par with or more efficient than the G5's FW400 was. FW800 is also significantly faster performing on the Mini than on the G5, and faster than USB 2 as well. Nearly all my external devices are FW400+USB2 interface equipped; I wish more of them also had FW800 interfaces. For still photography work, USB2 and FW400 are proving to be good enough, and the improved USB2 performance makes the system much more flexible as to how to organize the hardware connections. The improved IO performance makes it almost a wash, in practical terms, as to whether I site the Lightroom catalog on the same volume as the original image files vs the startup drive.) On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/23/2010 11:37 PM, Bob W wrote: whichever is correct, LR should not have crashed. It should have shown Boris both versions and given him the option, assuming they were both valid. I apologize for I reached for conclusion too soon. It keeps crashing again, less often perhaps, but crashing nonetheless. I am anticipating LR 3.2... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
LR 3.0 peculiarity
Hi! If you remember, I mentioned on the list that my LR3.0 behaves oddly. Almost every second time I would start it, it would crash. It seems I did something today that resolved this very issue. Perhaps it would be useful for you too... LR indicated that some of my photos had some kind of discrepancy in its metadata. It said that whatever LR knows is different from what is written on disk. This is as far I could understand it. So I went to the topmost location in my catalog, selected all the photos and asked LR to kindly overwrite whatever is on disk with whatever LR thinks is the settings for each photo. It took a bit of time, no negative effect that I could discern except that my catalog file became about 10% bigger. Since then, no crashes. HTH. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On 2010-08-23 10:34, Boris Liberman wrote: LR indicated that some of my photos had some kind of discrepancy in its metadata. It said that whatever LR knows is different from what is written on disk. This is as far I could understand it. So I went to the topmost location in my catalog, selected all the photos and asked LR to kindly overwrite whatever is on disk with whatever LR thinks is the settings for each photo. It took a bit of time, no negative effect that I could discern except that my catalog file became about 10% bigger. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but that sounds dangerous to me. I think I'd tell it to go the other way: discard whatever is in the catalog for those images and reload from the original image data files. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: LR 3.0 peculiarity
From: Boris Liberman Hi! If you remember, I mentioned on the list that my LR3.0 behaves oddly. Almost every second time I would start it, it would crash. It seems I did something today that resolved this very issue. Perhaps it would be useful for you too... LR indicated that some of my photos had some kind of discrepancy in its metadata. It said that whatever LR knows is different from what is written on disk. This is as far I could understand it. So I went to the topmost location in my catalog, selected all the photos and asked LR to kindly overwrite whatever is on disk with whatever LR thinks is the settings for each photo. It took a bit of time, no negative effect that I could discern except that my catalog file became about 10% bigger. Since then, no crashes. The only problem I see with that is how do you know that whatever LR knows is the correct metadata? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: LR 3.0 peculiarity
Hi! If you remember, I mentioned on the list that my LR3.0 behaves oddly. Almost every second time I would start it, it would crash. It seems I did something today that resolved this very issue. Perhaps it would be useful for you too... LR indicated that some of my photos had some kind of discrepancy in its metadata. It said that whatever LR knows is different from what is written on disk. This is as far I could understand it. So I went to the topmost location in my catalog, selected all the photos and asked LR to kindly overwrite whatever is on disk with whatever LR thinks is the settings for each photo. It took a bit of time, no negative effect that I could discern except that my catalog file became about 10% bigger. Since then, no crashes. The only problem I see with that is how do you know that whatever LR knows is the correct metadata? whichever is correct, LR should not have crashed. It should have shown Boris both versions and given him the option, assuming they were both valid. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: LR 3.0 peculiarity
On 8/23/2010 11:37 PM, Bob W wrote: whichever is correct, LR should not have crashed. It should have shown Boris both versions and given him the option, assuming they were both valid. I apologize for I reached for conclusion too soon. It keeps crashing again, less often perhaps, but crashing nonetheless. I am anticipating LR 3.2... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
