Jan,
The primary scratch will be more efficient if on a different Physical HDD to the pagefile (rather than merely on a separate partition of the same physical device).
The Pagefile is the Windows swap-file (in win9x parlance) and for best performance with Photoshop be set to Min=Max=2x installed RAM
Len, thanks for getting back to me. Yes, I will be using a physical drive for each. My question for the scratch drive is – how big do I need?
Can you or someone explain how to setup / configure the "Pagefile" in Windows? I will be installing 2 ~ 4 gig of RAM running Windows XP Pro.
Thanks,
Jan
Jan, in WinXP, go to Control Panel>System>Advanced Tab>Performance Settings Button>Advanced Tab. Down near the bottom of that screen, click on Change, under Virtual Memory. The next screen will allow you to designate which drive you want your Paging(Swap)File on. Click Custom Size and enter 2X your amount of RAM in the Initial and Maximum size boxes.
As for how large your scratch disk should be, that would vary depending on what size files you work on, but HD space is cheap these days. Go large. (Mine is on its own 30GB partition on my D: drive.)
Nick
Jan,
I will be installing 2 ~ 4 gig of RAM running Windows XP Pro<<
Photoshop can use no more than 2 gigs of RAM…
Nick, thanks for the info. That helps, and you’re correct – HD’s are cheap. I know now that "Paging Files" and "Virtual Mem" are the same, that will be easy to set up. Thanks again.
Len, I was unaware that PS only uses 2 gig. The classes I’ve taken, the instructors mentioned going the max on your computer and never said it only used "X" amount. Also keep in mind that your system also uses a good portion, so 4 gig is probably better – yes, I know – expensive! Thanks for getting back to me.
Both have a great day!
Jan
Photoshop can indeed use no more than 2 gigs of RAM. So when I bought my new computer (some months ago actually) I chose to have 2 gigs installed. But what I didn’t realise at that time was that I can’t allocate more than 50% to Photoshop. Now I am very sorry I didn’t go for more….
Ronald
Ronald,
Now I am very sorry I didn’t go for more….<<
Just in case your wording confuses anyone…
The percentage memory allocation is the percentage of the memory available to Photoshop, not a percentage of the installed RAM. 50% with 2gig installed or 4 gig installed RAM will be the same.
Having more RAM MAY have allowed you to allocate a higher percentage to Photoshop, but not necessarily given you a performance increase.
the 2 gig limit is imposed on all applications by windows.
Len,
Not trying to argue with you, just wondering…
I have 2 GB of RAM. In the memory settings I have only 1767 MB available to Photoshop and have allocated 50% of that to PS (=883 MB).
Now, suppose I had 3 GB installed; wouldn’t I have 2024 MB available to Photoshop and allow me to allocate 50% of 2024MB? If so I would have 16 % more than I have now.
Ronald
Ronald, for what it’s worth, you can allocate more than 50% of your available RAM in PS CS. Or, are you just quoting 50% based upon some of the recommendations that changes in the memory management by PS CS are such that settings over 50% may degrade performance? I seem to recall reading such comments myself but I think Chris Cox has made a comment before that up to 75% allocation should be feasible in PS CS (I could search the forum for the quote, but haven’t). I know the tile size issue has factored into this somehow, so maybe 50% is the max recommended allocation these days…I’m not current on the topic.
One thing I’ve never asked nor been certain of, is what is the scratch disk? Specifically, is it strictly the "data handling workspace" used by Photoshop or does it also include the memory within which Photoshop resides once launched?
Related to Ronald’s question, if one has enough installed RAM that more than 2GB is available for all applications to use and yet PS is the only open application, does the memory allocation dialog in PS reflect that total amount, or does PS cap it off to the 2GB allocatable limit? If the larger amount is shown, then does PS restrict the user from selecting a percentage that would exceed 2GB, or does PS simply limit the amount internally to 2GB regardless of the higher value selected by the user?
Thanks,
Daryl
(who only has 1.5GB to play with, thus the questions are basically moot)
Ronald,
wouldn’t I have 2024 MB available to Photoshop<<
Nope, as I understand it you would have exactly the same figure. Photoshop ‘looks’ at the installed RAM it can see and then subtracts a hard-wired percentage to give the figure you see.
or does PS cap it off to the 2GB allocatable limit?
<nodding> application data space. minus the amount the program and plugins take within that 2 gig.
Boy, am I ever glad I didn’t put more than 2GB in my new machine. (Well, I was out of money anyway, so it’s kinda moot. I always keep a few dollars around for Len’s beer, should I unexpectedly run into him) But, based on this, even if I had put 4GB of RAM in, PS would see 2GB and subtract from that.
Yeah Nick, looking at it from a PS perspective only, it seems that if one installs more than 2GB RAM, the primary benefit is just to provide overhead for the O/S and other processes to utilize so that at least you get as near as possible to giving PS 2GB to play with. Of course if you have any tendency to run multiple resource-hungry apps, then that too would be better served with more than 2GB RAM installed.
Boy, am I ever glad I didn’t put more than 2GB in my new machine.
well, each app can use up to 2 gig, so if you have say 3 or 4 gig, and opened ps up all the way, you’d still have 1 or 2 gig left over for windows and other apps. … erm, what daryl said. 🙂
Daryl,
In 6 or 7 I could allocate 75-80% to Photoshop but with CS this degrades performance: e.g. when placing Illustrator files (medium or large sized) I get a Not Enough Memory error (go figure) and most actions (not the automation, I mean the things I do) take much more time when the percentage is set to more than 50.
I am not too pleased with CS. I do love many of its features and have always been a loyal fan of Photoshop (since version 2.5) but in spite of all the things Chris Cox has told us I still have the feeling this version is not so well behaved as the previous versions were…
Ronald
In 6 or 7 I could allocate 75-80% to Photoshop but with CS this degrades performance:
I believe they’re loading (some? all?) plugins in the space now. Which they’ve admited is a problem. I don’t recall exactly who said this, but it was one of the engineers (chris, scott, mark, et.al.)
Something that’s curious to me: I have 2GB RAM and run my memory at 75% with no problem. Others with 2GB have performance problems with setting it above 50%. I wonder where the difference is.
I wonder where the difference is.
gremlins. XD
Ronald,
Thanks for the clarification…I assumed your 50% setting was one driven by limitations (problems) with PS CS rather than some hard rule you’d stumbled across, but thought I should ask.
Daryl
Nick,
I’ve been wondering the same for ages now – my machine turns into a real turkey at anything over 49%, even with nothing else running. Asus P4P800 deluxe mobo, V9520 video; P4 3.0; 2GB Corsair TwinX DDR SDRAM (dual channel setup), and XP Pro SP-1. This is a combination that has the problem. Having tried Kingmax (both HyperX & VR) RAM, I don’t think I can blame the RAM, so I’m thinking Asus or XP pro. I’m ambivalent as to PS – this happens with both 7 & CS on my current machine, whereas my old P3 1.0GHz/1.5GB machine never had a problem with 80% allocation & PS7.
I almost understand the excuses so far given, but it all becomes just hot air when people such as yourself report NO problems.
I just wish one or any of the software or hardware companies would do a little research to justify their continued getting fat off our money, instead of expecting us at the coal face to continually bear the load.
Micro$oft’s continual retort to various other problems on their website "This is a known problem and may be fixed in a later update" epitomizes the arrogance of the IT industry.
Fred.
Nick,
My machine is quite different from yours: MSIK7D Master mobo; Dual AMD Athlon MP 2400+; 2048 MB Kingston Registered DDR SDRAM; Promise RAID 5 controller; Windows 2000 Pro SP4…
I would think CS should be feeling like a race horse on a machine like yours or mine…
Ronald
Fred, it would seem that our machines are somewhat similar. My specs:
Asus P4P800-E Deluxe, P4 2.8 800Mhz FSB, 512KB L2 cache, 2 GB Kingston Value RAM (dual channel), Matrox G550, XP Pro SP1.
Of course, there are bound to be other differences in installed software, drivers, etc.
(Reminder: The problems that I was having with PS CS were with my previous machine. This new machine runs it like a champ.)
Nick,
Boy, am I ever stumped now. This machine was off the rails from the word go, with only the OS & PS7 installed. Your machine is so similar to mine – yet runs, as you say, like a champ. 75% allocation results in a string of "not enough RAM" messages when doing anything other than the most menial tasks in PS on mine – hardly champ material……
HUGE shoulder shrug!
I give up. I’ll suffer with this until the next upgrade in a couple of years. I couldn’t be bothered wasting any more stress time over this.
Sigh.
Sorry to have gone so far O/T Bob & Len, returning to regular programming now………..
