Solid State Drive + Lightroom = Speedy

[helvetica]

I have been hearing - like most of you - that SSD's (solid state hard drives) make your computer go fast, especially for loading lots of things into memory.

If you have the option to upgrade or add an SSD into your computer workflow, you absolutely should consider it. Moving from one file to the next is still largely a function of how much RAM you have, but the initial LR boot up takes ages on my well equipped normal hard drive computer, but takes under three seconds on my SSD computer.

Chime in if you agree that bang-for-bug an SSD is a very compelling computer upgrade.

 

[gavinlg]

Yup. Just updraded my macbook pro to the SSD/retina display model and it is blisteringly fast. Even the slightly slowly x-trans files are super quick to process. Boot speed is as you say.

 

[Greyscale]

I just built a new PC using an SSD for the boot drive. Windows 7 boot time is blisteringly fast, about 6 seconds from off to the login screen. I have no idea how Lightroom would have been on my old computer, but on this one it virtually pops open, as do all other programs.

 

[willie_901]

Another yes vote here.

 

[Berth]

I converted to a SSD MacBook Pro last year, motivated largely by the desire for more reliable data storage less vulnerable to equipment failure. The performance improvement in software like Aperture is remarkable.

 

[helvetica]

I converted to a SSD MacBook Pro last year, motivated largely by the desire for more reliable data storage less vulnerable to equipment failure. The performance improvement in software like Aperture is remarkable.

Did you convert the optical drive into a bay for the (spinning) HDD? I think a dual drive setup in the (non-retina) macbooks would be great - big HDD drive for storage, fast SSD drive for applications.

 

[Doug]

Replacing the hard drive with an SSD in my 2009/2010 iMac 27 seemed like such a nice idea, until the techs told me the drive interface would limit read/write speeds and allow no benefit. Too bad, too old!

Similarly, Apple says this iMac may use up to four 4Gb RAM modules, while MacTracker claims the faster processor like mine can use four 8Gb... We shall see, as I just ordered two 8Gb cards to try... I'm seeing the spinning beachball all too often.

 

[Berth]

Did you convert the optical drive into a bay for the (spinning) HDD? I think a dual drive setup in the (non-retina) macbooks would be great - big HDD drive for storage, fast SSD drive for applications.

No, I replaced my previous notebook with a new MacBook Pro Retina display model with a 768 Gb SSD.

 

[helvetica]

No, I replaced my previous notebook with a new MacBook Pro Retina display model with a 768 Gb SSD.

That would do the trick! As my understanding of hardware architecture goes, the large the SSD the faster it actually is, as it is striping the data across multiple chips. 16GB of RAM I assume too?

 

[bwcolor]

I have an eight core 2008 Mac Pro and updated the system drive to SSD and updated my video card. That gave me an extra year. I finally built a much more powerful windows computer with the system drive with two SSDs in Raid 0 configuration, but the real use of fast SSD drives has been when using them for my video working drives. I can now use Lightworks to directly edit my files directly out of my A7.

 

[Doug]

Did the upgrade to SSD in your MacPro result in faster drive read/writes? I'm told that the drive interface for my late-2009 quad-core iMac isn't fast enough to make good use of the SSD, so not to bother. If yours is faster, then mine might get faster too... 🙂

I'm in a mode to question authority, as Apple says my iMac can use as much as 16Gb of ram, and it's running fine as of yesterday with 24Gb...

 

[finguanzo]

Im waiting for new processor macbook pros to be released, so I put an ssd in my late 2008 macbook pro, not lightning fast, but now I can wait a little longer..
I was impressed with the difference..

 

[GaryLH]

Did the upgrade to SSD in your MacPro result in faster drive read/writes? I'm told that the drive interface for my late-2009 quad-core iMac isn't fast enough to make good use of the SSD, so not to bother. If yours is faster, then mine might get faster too... 🙂

I'm in a mode to question authority, as Apple says my iMac can use as much as 16Gb of ram, and it's running fine as of yesterday with 24Gb...

Hmmmm.. Someone is not really telling the complete story.. Even if the read/write speed is the same (most cases ssd is faster), a HD is a spinning disk and has one thing known as latency associated w/ it. That means that at any given time, the read/write head may not be positioned under the start of where the data should be read or written. There are other issues as well such as head switch to new cyclinder, etc.. An ssd has none of the things associated w/ delay times for a rotation media device.

For example, I did not feel like dismantling my iMac (i5 dual 3.6ghz w/ 8gb of ram) to install a ssd. Instead I put an ssd in a FireWire 800 ext HD case used Carbon Copy Cloner to copy the Mac OS and all my critical stuff including Apps onto the ssd, left the rest on the 2tb HD. Symbolic linked everything else back to the HD. Made the ssd my bootable partition. My iMac runs about twice as fast as before. If I had done the surgery to put the ssd internal, I think it would be 3 to 4 times faster since we are talking 800mbs FireWire 800 vs sata 2 bus speed difference.

If u only have 2gb, getting at least 8gb will show a big improvement, going past 8 will depend on how many apps u tend to leave open and if u use memory/CPU intensive like ps or movie editors.

Gary

 

[Bill Clark]

Western Digital Portable Hard Drives:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Portable-Drives/ci/12798/N/4232862018


SSD:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/External-Drives/ci/6543/N/4294542383+3989453013

Price per gig or meg?

I still use portable hard drives like the Western Digital listed.

Don't want to pay that much for speedy!

 

[honozooloo]

Actually, SSD + any computer-related task = Speedy.

If you've got a computer that uses a platter-based hard drive and it's feeling like it's getting slow and a little long in the tooth...an SSD upgrade and maybe even some extra RAM (hey it's a cheap upgrade for 2+ year old computers) are the cheapest, most effective ways to breathe new life into old hardware.

I am now working on a 15" MacBook Pro Retina with a 1TB SSD (wallet says ouch) and I can honestly say it's the best machine I've ever used for photographic work. Between the performance and the high-density Retina display...I'm in heaven. 🙂

 

[segedi]

Just upgraded to a 1TB SSD and Windows 8.1 for my PC. Expensive upgrade but everything is so much faster!

 

[Paddy C]

It's on my list for July (that's when I figure I'll have the time).

Going to put a 256gb SSD in my Mac Pro as the boot/app drive. I already have a 128gb SSD which I will finally put to use as a scratch disk. Will also be adding 24GB of RAM.

That should keep things going for a few years.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's not all roses. My 2011 Macbook Air is quite slow to wake up and is "adequate", when I throw VMware or Virtual Box at it. I've not looked too closely but the symptoms look like an I/O bottleneck to me. Hanging a FW800 drive on it actually speeds it up!

Apple Support asked me for some test results and told me they were within spec, so I wonder if older SSD technology was up to the hyperbole.

 

[Godfrey]

I have a 960G SSD sitting on my desk awaiting a bit of free time to put it into my Mac mini... I've seen the results on other machines: it's well worth it.

I'll add it to the mini as a second drive, configure it to be the startup with all the apps and my home directory. All my photo data is on external drives, so I'm not sure what I'll purpose the other internal (1T) drive to do just yet.

G

 

[bwcolor]

Did the upgrade to SSD in your MacPro result in faster drive read/writes? I'm told that the drive interface for my late-2009 quad-core iMac isn't fast enough to make good use of the SSD, so not to bother. If yours is faster, then mine might get faster too... 🙂

I'm in a mode to question authority, as Apple says my iMac can use as much as 16Gb of ram, and it's running fine as of yesterday with 24Gb...

Yes... Hard drives are not pushing the 2009 bandwidth bottleneck. Also, random seeks/writes are much faster with the SSD.