CS uses HUGE amounts of memory

BP
Posted By
Brian_Peart
Jan 23, 2004
Views
1484
Replies
47
Status
Closed
Can anyone explain why a 56Mb file opening in PS7 opens up to a 112.6Mb image, whereas the same image opened in CS opens up to a whopping 663.4Mb image. Its just a straight scan, no layers or anything fancy. I noticed that CS was running very slowly because it was thrashing the hard disk writing scratch files – this on a PC with 1.5GB ram!! Photoshop 7 never went this slowly.

Why does CS require so much ram? Is there a setting somewhere that will improve the situation?

In the meantime, I’ve gone back to using v7 because its faster, but I somehow regret spending out on the CS upgrade when I find myself using the old version in preference.

Any ideas?

Brian

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

N
nagash
Jan 23, 2004
Its probably the CDS "Hiiden feature"

See (Phosphor "No Wonder Photoshop CS Seems Slow – It’s Analyzing Images For Content!" 1/7/04 10:11am </cgi-bin/webx?14/0>)
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 23, 2004
Hi Brian,

Memory concerns regarding PS CS have been discussed quite a bit in here, and I believe the answers you need regard the "tile size". Try doing a search on that and look for posts by Chris Cox or Scott Byer, as it is their replies that offer some sort of explanation.

Regards,

Daryl
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 24, 2004
Daryl,

Thanks for your suggestion – I have read the thread mentioned above by searching Chris Cox’s conversations previously, but I’m afraid the question remains unanswered: WHY is CS using so much memory and WHAT can be done about it?

We don’t need to discuss memory settings (except to set it as high as you can get away with)and which disk of what type to use as a scratch disk, that is not the issue.

I can’t see WHY an image file opened in PS7 opens up to 112MB, yet when the same image is opened in CS it opens up to a HUGE 663Mb. The effect of this huge file makes CS run out of available ram more quickly than PS7 did, which is what slows down the machine, and which is why people are saying that CS is slow. CS probably isn’t any slower that PS7 was EXCEPT when it uses up all the available ram and starts spooling to disk, which it does do sooner than PS7.

So we can say that CS is fine, except that it uses massive amounts of memory, which causes the machine to spool to disk and it is that that slows down the performance of the program.

Therefore the question remains Why is it doing this and What can be done about it?

I just bought an extra 512Mb of ram to boost my PC system to 1.5Gb ram in order to give CS more space in which to work before spooling started. PS7 worked quite happily in 1Gb ram and hardly ever spooled data to the disk.

In CS when I open up an image, it immediately uses up a third of my memory and I can only perform a few tasks on that image before CS runs out of available memory and starts spooling data to the disk, and that is not good enough, especially when PS7 didn’t do this.

FYI my PC is an Athlon 3GHz, 1.5Gb ram, 120Gb HD, Win XP Home, etc etc – its has plenty of power. Memory allocation is set at 95% as it is in PS7.

I think this has to be a bug and wonder whether it will be fixed in a revision in the near future?

Regards,

Brian
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
The irony here is that the more RAM you have, the larger the scratch file. I have a similar spec machine except 1 Gb of RAM and the scratch file from a flat 50 Mb file is 228 Mb according to the Scratch Size in the status bar. With 95% allocated to PS, it shows 228/863 and I can work fairly comfortably with this. If the scratch gets too big I close and reopen the file which may be an inconvenience but it is a lot faster than allowing PS to use the scratch disk.

However, working with larger files is more of a problem. A 120 Mb flat file shows 336/863 and it doesn’t take too long for the scratch to fill up.

I don’t think this is regarded as a bug by Adobe and it is probably the worst feature of PSCS if you work on largish files.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Jan 24, 2004
Brian,

see the message by Scott Byer on the Mac forum.

<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?7@@.2ccf0d01/91>

Read it carefully as it explains what you you see.

I think this has to be a bug and wonder whether it will be fixed in a revision in the near future?

It’s not a bug. Faster boxes with more processors meant that certain changes needed to be made in the way memory is handled.

BTW: 95% is too high for CS even if you had 2GB of RAM. Windows needs RAM to work and for some functions Photoshop needs to work outside it’s own allocation of RAM. Once Windows or PS starts swapping out to disk your going to see a big slow down. If you are only using one HD then you are again strangling performance since Windows and Photoshop are both trying to use disk for the same purpose

Mick,

The irony here is that the more RAM you have, the larger the scratch file. I have a similar spec machine except 1 Gb of RAM and the scratch file from a flat 50 Mb file is 228 Mb according to the Scratch Size in the status bar.

True, but the the left hand scratch readout is not RAM it’s Virtual Memory and Virtual Memory is NOT solely hard disk space. You should also read the Scott Byers messages at the above link.
ND
Nick_Decker
Jan 24, 2004
Mick,

If the scratch exceeds the memory allocation, I close and reopen the file which may be an inconvenience but it is a lot faster than allowing PS to use the scratch disk.

Just a guess, but have you tried purging your History instead of closing and reopening the file?

Nick
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
Nick, purging (even purging all) releases only a fraction of the memory. Closing and reopening a file only takes a few seconds so this is what I tend to do.

Ian, I’ve been around too long (in the world and on this forum) and know better than to argue with you about the intricacies of PS. I defer to your knowledge.

However, the bottom line here, semantics aside, is that CS runs out of RAM a lot faster than earlier versions, making it difficult to work on large files (say >100 Mb with 1 Gb of RAM).

Back to semantics- my simplistic understanding of the Scratch Sizes indicator in the Status Bar is that the left number shows the amount of RAM being used by the file which broadly equates to the size of the scratch file. The number on the right indicates the total amount of RAM available to PS. When the number on the left gets bigger than the number on the right, PS uses the scratch disk and things slow down dramatically. I am confused by what you mean whe you say that Virtual Memory is not solely hard disk space.

PS help file say

The number on the left represents the amount of memory that is currently being used by the program to display all open images. The number on the right represents the total amount of RAM available for processing images.

When your system does not have enough RAM to perform an operation, Photoshop and ImageReady use a proprietary virtual memory technology, also called scratch disks. A scratch disk is any drive or a partition of a drive with free memory.
L
LenHewitt
Jan 24, 2004
Mick,

Photoshop, ever since version 3, uses the Scratch as its PRIME memory. It uses the available installed RAM as a cache for that scratch memory. It is NEVER a case of ‘running out of RAM and having to use the scratch’ as it ALWAYS uses the scratch.
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 24, 2004
Hi Mick,

As you say, and what I am trying to get to the bottom off, is that CS runs out of memory faster than earlier version because it creates such huge ‘internal’ files and it uses up all the available ram. WHY does it do this? WHAT is it doing? WHY does the same file opened in CS take SIX TIMES the amount of available ram than the same file opened in PS7?

I thought at first there was a problem with the Scratch Size indicator, but no, because you can see, hear and feel the system spooling data to the disk. When the value of the left figure exceeds the right figure, it starts spooling, as we all know. The issue is WHY does CS use such a vast amount of memory? Let’s not forget that 600Mb is a HUGE amount of memory – its almost equal to the total ram of the three other machines in my studio! And that’s before I do any work on the image. Something has to be wrong, and I don’t understand what it is.

The great disappointment to me (and others) (and others reading this who may be considering the upgrade) is that CS is not as good as PS7 because *in spite of the fact that it has all the new goodies, it runs too slowly to be able to use*. That is the problem. I’ve bought the upgrade in good faith as I have every upgrade since V3, but this version is ruined by its appetite for ram. It’s like watching an athlete who has just eaten an anvil try and run a marathon. And its why I’m using v7 for production work instead of my new CS upgrade.

I’m going to try reducing the amount of ram used by photoshop to see what happens, but I’m sure that all that will happen is that CS will run out of ram sooner, because I’m allocating less available ram to use. I would have though that was obvious, but perhaps I’m wrong, so I’ll go and try and I’ll let you all know what happens.

Very frustrating…

Regards,

Brian
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 24, 2004
To Len – Hi Len!

What prime memory actually is, what scratch memory actually is, what you call it, doesn’t matter, because that’s not the point. The point is that a file opened in CS uses very much more memory than the same image opened in V7, and that very quickly, the system starts spooling to the disk. I don’t care what name you call it – CS is hitting the disk and that is slowing things down. Version 7 and earlier didn’t do this, so I repeat, WHY is CS doing this and WHAT can be done about it. I don’t understand what CS is doing to use this HUGE amount of memory.

Note that I’ve always used the term ‘spooling to disk’ in order not to get caught up in semantics. (And becuse spooling to the disk is what is happening).

Regards,

Brian
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 24, 2004
(And becuse spooling to the disk is what is happening).

actually what’s happening, as len says and the adobe techs have all spoken on in the past, is at all times it’s spooling FROM the disk (it’s main working storage, aka the "scratch disk") TO memory to speed up operations (a’la cache memory in the CPU). You run into trouble when you run out of that cache memory (real memory, or physical RAM) and need to spool BACK to disk in order to complete a function you’ve requested.

dave
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
OK guys, I knew things were going to get complicated and I’m not qualified to argue. The help file is a bit misleading in this regard though – repeat

When your system does not have enough RAM to perform an operation, Photoshop and ImageReady use a proprietary virtual memory technology, also called scratch disks.

Does imply it only uses scratch when it runs out of RAM but I believe you all.

The bottom line, which Brian is trying his best to get at, is performance:

left number greater than right number, PS slows down (I know it’s not quite as simple as this but it is more or less true)

PSCS – left number much greater than PS6 (all I’ve got) – left number for same file size

PSCS fewer operations for left number greater than right number than PS6 (and 7 I hear)

I should add that I find CS as fast as or faster on my machines in general than 6 and I’m overall very happy with it. I normally don’t use files larger than about 60 Mb and usually don’t get into serious left num greater than right num situation.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 24, 2004
When your system does not have enough RAM to perform an operation, Photoshop and ImageReady use a proprietary virtual memory technology, also called scratch disks.

Does imply it only uses scratch when it runs out of RAM but I believe you all.

It does, sort of. It leaves out the first part which is that the data starts on the disk before moving to RAM.
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
Dave
I suppose the obvious question here is why does the disk activity make itself audible only when left num greater than right num.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 24, 2004
I dunno. πŸ™‚ possibly it’s hitting a situation where it needs to swap OUT of ram back to disk to work on something else in ram and still try to keep up with what’s going on in the interface. so it’s churning as fast as the heads can move. chugga chugga.
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
What does it matter anyway. The only problem now is I can never say simple things like "starts using scratch disk" anymore without looking over my shoulder.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 24, 2004
The only problem now is I can never say simple things like "starts using scratch disk" anymore without looking over my shoulder.

well, that’s not really a simple thing, it’s actually pretty complex. as bill clinton learned us, "that depends on the what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is."

πŸ™‚
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
So who was it that said "I ain’t often right but I’ve never been wrong"
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 24, 2004
"…it seldom turns out the way it does in the song."

That was Robert Hunter in Scarlet Begonias writing for Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead! πŸ™‚
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 24, 2004
Brilliant Dave. I love that stuff in the background when I’m pounding out the pixels.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 25, 2004
I love it in the forground too! πŸ™‚
IL
Ian_Lyons
Jan 25, 2004
I suppose the obvious question here is why does the disk activity make itself audible only when left num greater than right num.

Depending on the operation being undertaken by Photoshop I’ve not noticed any significant difference in "overall" disk activity since version 3. With smaller files (less than 500MB) folk might notice that disk activity is a bit more audible in CS. However, because it wasn’t as audible in PS7 doesn’t mean that the disk wasn’t being used. All folk need do is use an app that graphs memory/disk use and they’ll see what Adobe and others have been "trying" to tell them – Photoshop ALWAYS uses the scratch disk and has done since version 3. The big change is the way CS appears to use scratch i.e. the new "Tile" size that Chris and Scott have mentioned mean each page being swapped is bigger than in PS7. The upside of bigger is that we need fewer swaps to complete the operation which means that the work gets done quicker. "Tile" size accounts for MOST of the increase in the scratch value and should NOT be considered as bad!

One of the reasons that Adobe suggests that we use a second disk is so that scratch disk activity doesn’t occur on the same disk and at the same time as the OS decides it needs to do some swapping of its own. Unless we have more than 2GB of RAM we don’t want to have much more than 85% of RAM allocated to PS (ideally less). If we use certain plugins and/or filters Photoshop needs to work them outside of its RAM allocation and all hell can break loose at OS level when it finds Photoshop has taken it all. Again, Scott and Chris and likely very tired trying to make folk understand this, but some don’t seem to want to listen.

I can go to about 80% when working with big files, but above that I often see problems looming as the system starts to run out of RAM. Again, Scott and Chris have explained this numerous times, but nobody seems to want to hear any of this. Yeh, I’m starting to sound like a broken record as well!

What Brian reported is normal and was done for performance reasons. Chris and Scott have mentioned increased "Tile" sizes on a number of occasions and what Brian reports is a by-product of this. I’m not sure that I can say more, other than to say bigger IS better when working with large files.

There is a LOT of VERY useful info in the post by Scott that I linked to earlier. You all should read it – To say "CS runs out out of RAM quicker than PS7" is wrong because it doesn’t – the Scratch grows quicker and bigger in CS, but scratch isn’t RAM and the left hand value in the scratch readout is Memory NOT just RAM!

For what it’s worth, when working with larger images (say 250MB 16bit and up), and when configured correctly CS is generally faster than PS7. With smaller images the gap is less, and depending on the actual functions being undertaken PS7 or CS can trade places as to which is faster. Overall they are about equal for all but a small minority of folk.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 25, 2004
<golf clap for Ian>
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 25, 2004
I’ll second that Dave. What’s the line about being shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

That is a great explanation of tile sizes Ian. I’m coming round. Trouble is it’s difficult to quantify relative speeds between different PS versions for bigger files and instinct jumps on that big left number. I’ve been reading that thread but it’s a bit late to digest it properly. I’ll try it again in the morning.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 25, 2004
Trouble is it’s difficult to quantify relative speeds between different PS versions for bigger files and instinct jumps on that big left number.

I try not to look at any numbers. If it "feels" right. It’s good for me.
PC
Pierre_Courtejoie
Jan 25, 2004
Ian, you should post this in your Site, as you summarized very well what’s happening… it is another reference thread!
IL
Ian_Lyons
Jan 25, 2004
Pierre,

For some the info provided above is not yet sufficient. However, for the most part it is all that the majority require, but there will always be those who want the "nuts", "bolts" AND "thread size". We have the "nuts" and "bolts" now (through Chris and Scott we have done for weeks), but do we really NEED the "thread size"? I don’t honestly think so, although it could well help make the whole topic go away (for about 10 minutes). Alas providing that level of detail is not my call as some of the relevant info may well be something Adobe prefer not to be disclosed.

I’ll see about posting something in the FAQ section.

Whilst I’m on I might as well make another couple of suggestions that may help folk reduce memory usage, the scratch size and rate of scratch growth.

If you can avoid the "Copy" and "Paste" commands then do so. You can easily achieve the same end by simply "dragging" and "dropping" a selection using the Move tool. This has the advantage of allowing you to copy without using the Clipboard.

The default value for "History" is 20 states, but for many a lot less might be sufficient. Setting History to 1 in the Preferences is the same as switching it Off (mine is usually Off), but can easily be set to a higher value at any time whilst editing an image. Switching History Off can have a significant effect on the scratch size as we begin the process of editing an image.

Be aware that with History it is the global changes (filters, duplicate layers, etc) that cause the biggest Memory hit because they effect ALL of the "Tiles" making up the image. Localised edits on larger images may only impact on one or two "Tiles" and so the impact will be substantially less than for a global edit. If an edit impacts on say two "Tiles" then History will only record the change for those "Tiles". However, due to size of the "Tiles" in Photoshop CS the Memory hit will be bigger than it was in PS7 – remember the "Tiles" are bigger than they were in PS7. So reducing the number of History states may well be worth looking at on even the most well RAM stocked boxes, but only do so after establishing whether YOUR workflow will benefit from its absence. Ctrl+K opens the Preferences dialog at the relevant page.

What are "Tiles"?

When an image (especially a large one) redraws on your monitor you may have noticed that it renders in "blocks" – the blocks are "Tiles"!
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 25, 2004
Dear Ian et al,

I have re-read all the postings in this thread and the others previously mentioned. I don’t understand everything written, but then I’m not a programmer, like you guys are. You wrote the program and know what is going on. I’m trying to use your program and am finding difficulties that I don’t understand.

What I don’t understand is actually very simple to describe. Lets not use words like scratch files, memory, RAM or anything else just now. Let me ask this question one more time, in a very different way.

Do you remember those sort of dried up compressed sponges – when you throw them in water, they expand? Well the old type, called v7, expanded into a shape about the size of a house brick. The new one, called CS, expands into a shape the size of a barrel. Trouble is, it uses up nearly all the water in your bucket and you have to go and get more all the time…

I’m very sorry, I don’t care what you call it, memory, RAM, scratch files, tile sizes or whatever. I’m just using the program in the same way as I don’t need to know the intimate workings of the 4-stroke combustion engine to drive my car. What I am seeing, and I’m just a user, and I don’t care what its called or why, is that a file opened in v7 is smaller than the same file opened in CS. The consequence of that, is that CS starts using the hard disk sooner than v7, and under that situation, the operations slow down.

I have created a page on my website with tables of comparisons between v7 and CS. I have compared v7 with CS and adjusted the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider in the ‘Memory and Image Cache’ (in CS) settings in the light of previous posts. The page is at <http://www.chromatech.uk.com/photoshoptest.html>.

On my system, 1.5GB ram, I find there is an interesting point at about 72% Used by Photoshop. At that point, I get the maximum difference between the left and right figures in the scratch size indicator. Is this Photoshop running at its optimum setting? Is this what you mean by ‘tuning’ the setting, because nobody ever said you had to do this to optimise Photoshop before.

And even so, it STILL doesn’t explain why CS expands an image up to be a much bigger file than v7 did, and therefore starts using the disk sooner. The fact of the matter is, and my table shows it, the same file opened up in CS is bigger than when opened in v7. Do it yourself and see. Unless there is something wrong with my setup on my particular PC (and this is why I asked the question in the first place) you will see it’s bigger in CS.

I don’t get the connection between tile size and the size of the file in CS. I understand that the tilesize is bigger in CS and that when it starts moving data to and from the disk it is moving bigger chunks, and therefore there is more disk activity. Lets say you have 9 tiles instead of 12 or 16, is that going to make the scratch indicator show a bigger left hand figure?

I’m really sorry if people are tearing their hair out, I just want to understand. And I’m afraid that CS just doesn’t ‘feel right’ to me…

Brian
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 25, 2004
Brian

I think it would be interesting to see the actual times taken if you were to record an action to do the operations (aside from the scan) for the different memory settings and for different file sizes. This would be more definitive in measuring performance than simply showing the status bar numbers. I’ve noticed that things don’t necessarily slow down instantaneously when left num gets greater than right num.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Jan 25, 2004
Brian,

I don’t work for Adobe (actually none of the respondents in this thread work for Adobe).

You asked a question at the outset:

Can anyone explain why a 56Mb file opening in PS7 opens up to a 112.6Mb image, whereas the same image opened in CS opens up to a whopping 663.4Mb image.

If the numbers you quote are for the "Document Size" as shown on the the popup on the bottom left of the Photoshop Window then I would say something in your image is confusing the hell out of CS. If you are saying that it is the left hand value in the "Scratch Size" readout then it is NOT unusual. The reason that it is bigger than before is as I have already explained – "Tile" size in CS is larger than it was in previous versions. CS uses roughly the same number of Tiles as PS7 but they are larger!

I have created a page on my website with tables of comparisons between v7 and CS. I have compared v7 with CS and adjusted the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider in the ‘Memory and Image Cache’ (in CS) settings in the light of previous posts. The page is athttp://www.chromatech.uk.com/photoshoptest.html.

I’ve been using CS for about 7 months on various hardware platforms and OS’s. Friday last was the FIRST time I observed what you have noted at around 72% on your 1.5GB setup. I’ll not BS you and say I was not surprised because I was. I didn’t know why this jump occurred so I asked. I’m not sure that I can quote any of the reply so I won’t, but what you see is normal and not detrimental to performance. I’ve performed some very rigorous tests on both Mac and PC using a range of memory allocations and with larger files and greater than 1000MB of memory allocated to Photoshop I find CS is faster than PS7. The bigger the image the larger the performance gap becomes in favour of CS.

I don’t get the connection between tile size and the size of the file in CS. I understand that the tilesize is bigger in CS and that when it starts moving data to and from the disk it is moving bigger chunks, and therefore there is more disk activity. Lets say you have 9 tiles instead of 12 or 16, is that going to make the scratch indicator show a bigger left hand figure?

When you open Photoshop the scratch is created, that is even before you open an image. You can see exactly how large the scratch is by searching the hard disk you use for the scratch disk for a hidden file called "Photoshop Temp". This is the memory overhead that CS has at the beginning (it is much greater than PS7). The way I look at it is that by setting up the bigger initial pool of memory the easier it is for images to open up into the pool. Also remember Photoshop only use it’s RAM allocation as it is required – the scratch "value" is NOT simply RAM. As you begin working many of the elements making up this initial overhead become less relevant and the memory is released for other purposes. Back to our temp file – open an image and refresh your view of the temp file – compare it to the scratch file readout. By subtracting the overhead you can see roughly the amount needed for the image.

Nobody is arguing that the initial scratch size isn’t larger than it is in PS7, but the reason has been explained. What is being disputed is the assertion that because the left hand number in the scratch readout is bigger than before then CS uses/runs out of RAM quicker – it does NOT – it uses RAM differently and for larger images a LOT more efficiently. Likewise the change in disk activity doesn’t mean that performance reduced – it isn’t!

Brian

I think it would be interesting to see the actual times taken if you were to record an action to do the operations (aside from the scan) for the different memory settings and for different file sizes.

For an initial 100MB flat image ending as 1.1GB multilayer image CS is around 10% faster on my Mac and PC boxes with about 80% of my 2GB allocated to Photoshop. For the same original file with a different Action that results in no significant increase in file size but uses multiple filters and mode conversions the difference is around 1 to 2 percent in favour of CS. I’m sure that a different set of filters or conversions may reverse this last result, but I’ve not been able to get PS7 to beat CS when working with larger files.
MM
Mick_Murphy
Jan 25, 2004
Ian, I am now convinced you are right. I’ve just done some tests on my machine (Athlon 2800, 1 Gb of RAM) on a 106 Mb file with a series of actions (Add adjustment layers, unsharp mask, save as, a few more unsharp masks and gaussian blurs) which, how do I put it now, does a lot of disk activity (left num is 1.43 G, right num 818 at end of action with 90% allocation to PS). I get virtually identical times within the error on eyeballing the clock using PS6 and PSCS (I haven’t got 7). I also tried with 70% mem allocation and the times increased about 20% but they were still so close as to be indentical. I will try a larger file out of interest but I don’t expect to see any real difference now.

I did some speed tests a while back when I first upgraded on smaller files (up to about 50Mb) just out of interest with all the talk of CS being slow. I purposely kept the tests from going left num greater than right num as I figured this wouldn’t really test relative speed properly. My findings were that CS is faster, sometimes very significantly so, than PS6 for almost everything.
ND
Nick_Decker
Jan 26, 2004
Ian,

Thanks for the heads up on the copy/paste thingie. It bit me on the butt big time today! I’ll drag’n drop next time.

Nick
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 26, 2004
Thanks for the heads up on the copy/paste thingie. It bit me on the butt big time today! I’ll drag’n drop next time.

I agree. That’s interesting. Do you know if that’s also from open image to open image within PS, or is it just within a single image?

thx, dave
IL
Ian_Lyons
Jan 26, 2004
Dave,

You can drag and drop whole images, layers, masks, etc. from one to the other. Remember to hold the Shift key down when you drag!
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 26, 2004
Remember to hold the Shift key down when you drag!

Right. Thanks. Odd that it gets around the clipboard. Cool, but odd. Gonna take me a few days to remeber to do this every time instead of crtl-c/crtl-v.

Thanks!
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 26, 2004
Dear Ian,

Thank you for your clear and informative reply.

All my comments have applied to the Scratch sizes indicator pop-up only. I have always said that when opening the same image in v7 and CS, in CS the left number is massively greater, which it is, even from a flat file from a digital camera, which is what my results table is based on. Keep it simple. By v7, I mean 7 and previous.

I think the most important thing I have learned is that it is important to ‘tune’ the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider, because there comes a point (in a ram-rich PC) where the value of the left number changes dramatically, for some reason we don’t understand. There is a point where I get the biggest difference between left and right numbers, before it all goes crazy and suddenly half the available ram is used.

I still think its a bug, because it didn’t happen in earlier versions, something has been changed or improved in CS – tile size or whatever – and now this happens. Classic bug territory I would have thought. Shame your’e not able to clarify.

Never mind. I’ve now got a situation where a small flat file opened in CS ‘only’ opens up to 162M, compared to the massive 593M it did before I tuned the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider. I’m going to leave Photoshop CS at this setting and see how I get on with it.

Regards timing in the three states I tested, to be honest, I couldn’t tell any difference between them – up to the point when it started spooling the disk.

I normally have the pop-up at the bottom lhs set to ‘Document Profile’ so that I can check to see that I have set the correct profile according to the scanner/printer I’m using at the time. I don’t usually watch the Scratch Size indicator all the time as it might appear! I only noticed that something was wrong after becoming aware that CS was thrashing the disk very hard, when I work on large images to be printed. (I scan artwork and make giclΓ©e prints – big files!) The same operations in v7 hardly ever hit the disk that hard. So your assertation that CS is more efficient with bigger images I don’t get, because it was under precisely those situations that I noticed this problem.

I feel a bit happier about CS at the moment, although give me a few days to use it at these settings before I finalise that. I still feel upset that I have had to buy more memory, and now I’m thinking of adding a second physical hard drive purely for scratch disk. So upgrading will have cost me GBPΒ£100 above the upgrade fee. It’s like inviting a friend to stay and he brings his family with him.

I have learned:
1) Tune the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider,
2) Memory isn’t RAM,
3) CS uses the same number of tiles but they’re larger,
4) Disk activity doesn’t reduce performance,
5) More ram in the PC degrades performance.

A little mischievous, but that is what has been written!

If this thread goes any further, we have to define the words ‘memory’, ‘scratch files’ and discuss whether the definition of Scratch disk has altered from that given in online help:

When your system does not have enough RAM to perform an operation, >Photoshop and ImageReady use a proprietary virtual memory >technology, also called scratch disks. A scratch disk is any drive >or a partition of a drive with free memory.

A disk does not have memory, it has storage space.

Unless anyone can clarify more (about the original question), then I think I’m happy. Thank you to everyone who has contributed.

Brian
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 26, 2004
if you’re happy, i’m happy – but a little itchy with your summary. i’m going to pass on "nit picking" it.

arrgh! No I’m not! πŸ™‚

2) Memory isn’t RAM,

In GENERAL computing terms, yes it is. Sometimes the terminology is misused (sometimes intentionally, to make a difficult point easier to understand).

5) More ram in the PC degrades performance.

No it doesn’t. Ever. Never ever.
IL
Ian_Lyons
Jan 26, 2004
Brian

I think the most important thing I have learned is that it is important to ‘tune’ the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider, because there comes a point (in a ram-rich PC) where the value of the left number changes dramatically, for some reason we don’t understand. There is a point where I get the biggest difference between left and right numbers, before it all goes crazy and suddenly half the available ram is used.

YOU don’t understand – I do! The big step change IS as intended and improves performance.

I still think its a bug, because it didn’t happen in earlier versions, something has been changed or improved in CS – tile size or whatever – and now this happens. Classic bug territory I would have thought. Shame your’e not able to clarify.

There is NO bug. Forget the earlier versions of Photoshop as the engineers have changed how memory is used in CS.

Never mind. I’ve now got a situation where a small flat file opened in CS ‘only’ opens up to 162M, compared to the massive 593M it did before I tuned the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider. I’m going to leave Photoshop CS at this setting and see how I get on with it.

Feel free to do so, but that is NOT the optimum setup – it’s a bloody awful setup. I don’t know how I can explain it any better, but there reaches a point with CS in terms of available RAM when the Tile size increases. So CS has TWO Tile size options and they are automatically chosen depending upon the memory you allocate to Photoshop. The step increase is as INTENDED and it is GOOD for performance. You’re actually starving CS of RAM so that the scratch disk readout is smaller – sorry and no offence, but that is NUTS!

I have had to buy more memory, and now I’m thinking of adding a second physical hard drive purely for scratch disk. So upgrading will have cost me GBPΒ£100 above the upgrade fee.

Yeh you need a second disk – as did you need it before πŸ™

5) More ram in the PC degrades performance.

NOPE!

A little mischievous, but that is what has been written!

NOPE!

If this thread goes any further, we have to define the words ‘memory’, ‘scratch files’ and discuss whether the definition of Scratch disk has altered from that given in online help:

They’ve been well defined already.

Unless anyone can clarify more (about the original question), then I think I’m happy. Thank you to everyone who has contributed.

If you’re happy I’ll not rain on your parade, but make sure you keep a brolly handy because I think you’re gonna need it.
SB
Scott_Byer
Jan 26, 2004
Tuning Photoshop:

Open Windows Task Manager. Go to the Performance tab. The number to watch is in the Physical Memory section, "Available".

Start Photoshop and start working. That Available number will decrease and, after a while, will often stabilize out.

Is it below 15000 (15MB)? Your Photoshop memory percentage is set too high. Lower it and try again.
Is it above 50000 (50MB)? If you really have been doing things you normally do, including running a filter and you still have more than 50MB free, you’re probably leaving a little performance on the table (but not as much as you think!). Consider increasing Photoshop’s memory percentage slightly.

If you *really* want to get technical about it, bring up Performance Monitor and set it up to track a few things (free memory, disk activity, memory paging rates).

What you are trying to avoid is having the OS page out Photoshop’s memory. We don’t lock down Photoshop’s memory because that causes many, many more problems than it solves. But when Photoshop has allocated a lot of memory, some of it looks to the OS as "not busy" and will get paged out if RAM gets low. If Photoshop’s scratch and the OS paging file are on the same physical disk, this is doubly bad.

If all you want is the fastest performance on your machine, this is all you need to know. Scratch size, tile size, all red herrings and they generally don’t affect performance how you think they will.

-Scott
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 26, 2004
thanks scott!
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 27, 2004
Yes, Thanks, Scott. I tried this last night but ran out of time so I’ll give it a go in a day or two.

To Ian – I should apologise for the list I wrote in my last post:

I have learned: 1) Tune the ‘Maximum Used by Photoshop’ slider,
2) Memory isn’t RAM,
3) CS uses the same number of tiles but they’re larger,
4) Disk activity doesn’t reduce performance,
5) More ram in the PC degrades performance.

I was being naughty. I did say it was mischievous! Actualy you said ‘Memory isn’t just RAM’ in a previous post (22). I was being naughty and I apologise – it was late in the evening.

More ram in the PC degrades performance?

Not as far as I knew, up until the time I got CS! Then wierd things start happening with the scratch size indicator. I buy more ram and things get even more confusing. I have always understood that more ram is better, except in this case, where it just gets damn confusing.

Up until CS, traditional wisdom amongst users has been that left num greater than right num equals trouble. (posts 7,12,13,14,16).

CS is different in ways we don’t understand, can’t be explained or won’t be explained, (posts 22, 27, 30).

Now it seems that the traditional left num vs right num situation is changed. I still don’t understand it, but I’m past caring. Perhaps I can’t let go of the traditional thinking, but it doesn’t seem right. However, you guys say its a Good Thing, so what the heck.

I don’t know how I can explain it any better, but there reaches a point with CS in terms of available RAM when the Tile size increases. So CS has TWO Tile size options and they are automatically chosen depending upon the memory you allocate to Photoshop. The step increase is as INTENDED and it is GOOD for performance. You’re actually starving CS of RAM so that the scratch disk readout is smaller – sorry and no offence, but that is NUTS! (post 38)

None taken! So now there are TWO TILE SIZES??? Is this a moving target? When was that previously mentioned?

I missed the significance of posts 8 & 11. I’m sorry, this is what you have all been telling me, but its only just clicked. My definition of ‘memory’ is that data held in ram (what the M stands for). Data held on a disk is not held in memory, its held in a file that is stored on the disk. It can be paged in and out of ram, but its temporary storage, not memory.

Now I think I get your (Adobe’s) definition of ‘memory’ and ‘scratch’. Your definition of memory is a combination of ram and disk storage, ‘scratch’ is the temporary disk file itself (is this correct?)

When PS starts, it allocates a section of the HD to become the scratch file and it loads the image into there, not ram memory (yes/no?).

As you use PS, it reads that temp scratch file into ram memory to work on it, ‘cos its faster than leaving it on the disk (y/n?).

Because the ’tile sizes’ are bigger, CS reads bigger chunks of image data into memory, depending on whether you are doing a local edit like a clone retouch (where it may only load in the relavent tile), or you may be doing a global edit like a rotate canvas, in which case it loads up the whole image. (y/n?).

So the left number will increase more quickly because of the increased size of the tiles, and (now you tell me) the variable number of tile sizes. (y/n?)

Let say I allocate 72% of my available ram. This chokes PS by restricting the amount of ram that can be used to hold the working image data that is in ram, not on the disk. So that presumably means that PS has to shunt data back and forth to disk more often, and that slows things down. [ Which is what my original question was about ] (y/n?)

Because, on my system, at about 75% available ram, something wild happens to the left number, I supposed that 72% was an ‘optimum’ setting because it gave the greatest apparent left-num-to-right-num ratio. I believed this was good because I thought PS could load more bits into ram, before it ran out.

Now you tell me that is not the case, because PSCS can change the size of the tiles according to how much ram is made available. If I allocate 90% of ram, the little flat digicam image appears to occupy 593M/1.27G. So with more ram available PS uses half the available ram instead of less than a third.

But what you are saying is that its not the image expanding up to occupy that amount of the allocated ram, its the ‘scratch file’ size created, a combination of ram and disk storage, that is held in the ram. (post 22 & 30) And the fact thaws its all bigger is Good. (y/n?)

So now I should go and buy another HD and spend hours tuning PS a’la Scott’s method it try and get the most efficient setup. I never had to do this in previous versions, they all went like rockets at 95 or even 100% ram allocated. No problem. Okay sometimes it slowed down if I had GoLive running at the same time, but only then.

But its okay because CS is different. You just need to buy extra ram, hard disks and spend time tuning it…
P
Primus
Jan 28, 2004
Thank you everyone. I too, was going crazy with the same problem as Brian.

What led me to this thread was the fact that I had two images open in CS and was using the healing brush on one image with the brush size of 150 px and every time I clicked (a spot click, not a stroke) it would take about a second or two to do the trick – earlier it was instantaneous. If you are like me, this is slow! I looked at my efficieny indicator and it said 20%! I looked at the scratch file size and it was 1.7G/1.3G, so I thought that can’t be true. I did edit>purge>all and the scratch dropped to 1.1G/1.3G and the healing brush went ‘instant satisfaction’ again. I won’t go into the slowdowns with other things in CS.

So how does one feel good, having invested in a 3.2GHZ Pentium, 2Gig of RAM (the max you can put in a system), a WD Raptor RAID array, a separate 60G HD for scratch disk etc, then upgrading to CS and finding it does (to me) look slower?

Ian Lyons wrote:

When you open Photoshop the scratch is created, that is even before you open an image. You can see exactly how large the scratch is by searching the hard disk you use for the scratch disk for a hidden file called "Photoshop Temp".

I did that, Ian. In the fresh state, CS gives a reading of 581MB, with no images open.

open an image and refresh your view of the temp file – compare it to the scratch file readout. By subtracting the overhead you can see roughly the amount needed for the image.

Here’s the kicker:
Basic photoshop temp size=581MB
Image A (layered): file size 120MB, CS temp size=1043MB diff=462MB Image B (same file, flattened): file size 27MB, CS temp size=642 MB diff=61MB

How come? Do layered files take up much more memory and space even though the file size is only 120MB?

My concern is that despite having a 120MB file (albeit with layers), a fast machine with 2 G of RAM, CS slows down to being no different from when I had only 1G of RAM on a slow Athlon 1.8 system with PS7 running. I do not have the means to do a side-by side test, but AFAICR, there is no difference DESPITE the extra RAM and faster processor. If I had known this, I would not have invested in a faster system. I love CS for all the extras it gives, though and would not go back to v7.

My point is not so much whether CS is indeed slower than v7, but that adding oodles of RAM and getting the latest processor, setting up the fastest RAID array (short of the >10,000K systems) seems to make NO difference in the time it takes to do what I do.

Am I being unreasonable in my expectations?
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 29, 2004
I didn’t think so either, but CS is different, so its all right. It’s designed to do this, so it must be okay. Hmmmm???

[Still waiting to upgrade my PC with a second hard disk to see if I can work without CS slowing down…]

I tried the procedure Scott mentioned with the Task Manager, and I have a question. I would have expected that upon closing an image, the available memory figure would increase back to a high figure, but it doesn’t. Is that right?

In other words, work on image 1 for a bit, save & close, load image 2 etc – I would have thought the available memory figure would go back to max on closing image 1, but it just stays the same. Opening image 2 opens it into a smaller available ram than image 1 had, etc. By the time I get to image 3 or 4, depending on what I’m doing, CS is crawling, the available memory figure is very low and lots of HD activity.

I don’t want to go back to 7 either, but I have done, and I don’t get the same problems, with the same images on the same PC.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 29, 2004
I would have expected that upon closing an image, the available memory figure would increase back to a high figure, but it doesn’t. Is that right?

That’s the way it’s supposed to work. So it doesn’t need to reallocate all that memeory again and again. It should be released when you close photoshop.
SB
Scott_Byer
Jan 29, 2004
Yup. What he said. It’s about not fragmenting an address space that’s already in short supply. Note thta it’s not locked down memory – if you left Photoshop idle in the background for a while and the system needed the RAM for something else, it would be able to page it out and use it for another application.

-Scott
BP
Brian_Peart
Jan 29, 2004
Yes it certainly is released when I close Photoshop, but not between images. Does it take a lot (of effort/time/overhead whatever) to create the scratch file when PS loads? Could it not be done between images, because that would mean that each image would have the max available ‘memory’? I don’t know how it would work if you had multiple images open on screen though, if it created a scratch for each image?
SB
Scott_Byer
Jan 30, 2004
No, you’re missing where the problem is. It’s a more complicated computer sciency thing than just a number representing "free memory". Trust me. It would be a really bad idea for Photoshop to let go and re-allocate image tiles between having images open.

And "free ram" doesn’t mean "amount of memory another app could allocate". All apps can allocate up to 2GB of address space as long as you have the disk space to support a paging file that would be big enough. Of course, things could get pretty slow once you run out of free RAM, but they wouldn’t stop working.

-Scott

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer πŸ”₯πŸ”₯πŸ”₯

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections