# SSD question



## PeacePham (Mar 14, 2016)

Has anyone run Photoshop or Lightroom in a portable/external SSD?


I know that the SSD clearly launches Photoshop and Lightroom faster, but I don't know if it allows those programs to run faster after being opened. If you have any reviews about it, please let me know


----------



## risc32 (Mar 15, 2016)

i don't see how it would really run anything faster. a faster cpu would be the ticket you are after.


----------



## bwud (Mar 15, 2016)

External SSD? No. I guess the trade is whether the bandwidth of the connector (USB2, USB3, Thunderbolt, etc) limits the SSD.

I run LR off one internal SSD and have my workflow (in work catalogs and raws) on a second. Currently they are both SATA, but I have a NVMe (PCIe) SSD en route. I'll see whether it makes a difference having it as my system / software drive or as my workflow drive, but it should have significantly better bandwidth (upwards of 2.2GBps reading).


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 15, 2016)

Definitely not external USB SSD.... you want one on a SATA connector (there are external ones) or something that plugs into a slot on the motherboard....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 15, 2016)

PeacePham said:


> Has anyone run Photoshop or Lightroom in a portable/external SSD?
> 
> 
> I know that the SSD clearly launches Photoshop and Lightroom faster, but I don't know if it allows those programs to run faster after being opened. If you have any reviews about it, please let me know



Is Lightroom installed on the SSD or on the computer? Its possible to put the images on a SSD, and even the catalog, but I would not install the program itself on a SSD.

As others noted, the bandwidth of the connection may be limiting the performance, is it wireless, USB2, USB3, Thunderbolt, E-SATA? That connection can limit you.

As long as you are using a fast connection, it should be fine.


----------



## LDS (Mar 15, 2016)

When you load an application, its code is loaded into RAM, and unless the computer needs more RAM for something else, it stays there (it could be removed from RAM and reloaded from disk when needed, but if you encounter such a situation the issue is too little RAM, a faster disk would help little).

Then there are the disk accesses the application does when it is working, for example LR reads and writes from/to disk while your working because of the catalog updates, and image setting changes to be stored. Usually, is more important to speed up these accesses than the application loading itself

Images, catalogs and sidecar files can be put on a different disk than the one LR is run from. Just remember you can easily reinstall LR if a disk dies, your images may not.

As other said, the true speed of an external disk depends a lot on the connection type. SSDs can be very fast, but the "wrong" connection can slow them down a lot.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 15, 2016)

I'm not sure if its what you mean but my laptop has an SSD and a Harddrive.

Windows, Lightroom and Photoshop run off the SSD.

It's lightening fast compared to any old set up I had (the Laptop is powerful as well so I'm not sure what impact the SSD really had). It's instant start up

The issues
a) I bought a 128GB SSD Drive - This is totally insufficient. This annoy's me terrible. I keep running out of memory on the SSD drive. 
1) One reason is its Windows 8 and Microsoft sneakily loads Windows 10 onto it so the laptop is ready for a fast conversion to Windows 10 (which i don't want)
2) The second reason I run out of space is because Lightroom (which I have usually directed to the Hard Drive) keeps reverting to importing pictures to the SSD drive filling it up. It's really annoying and haven't figured out yet how to stop it
3) Photoshop and Lightroom bloat alot on the SSD when you are actively working. They can take up quite a bit of space in the cache's

So my advice - get a big SSD if you are going to get one. I wish I knew this in advance. 
I think SSD Is the way ahead. The instant startup is great.
Windows is pathetic in this regard normally.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 15, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm not sure if its what you mean but my laptop has an SSD and a Harddrive.
> 
> Windows, Lightroom and Photoshop run off the SSD.
> 
> ...



@ Hector1970: A bit off-topic, but:

1) I won't be so presumptuous to say that, as a Windows 8 user, you _should_ want to upgrade to Windows 10. But I will recommend that you give it a try. You can always revert back within 30 days of converting, without having to reinstall Win8, if you truly don't like Win10.

2) You can prevent LR from automatically opening the Import dialog when it detects the insertion of a memory card, by clicking Edit / Preferences, and on the General tab, in the Import Options section, uncheck the "Show import dialog when a memory card is detected" option. Also, when you're in the Import dialog, set the destination for the images you are about to import by clicking on the "To:" box in the upper right corner of the import dialog. (You can scroll down through a history of recent destinations and select one, or specify a new one.) Once you have specified the import destination that you want, and you have also (optionally) specified any of the other options along the right side of the Import dialog (file handling, renaming, keywords, etc.), click the Import button in the lower right corner. Note: this is in LR v5; there may be minor variations in other versions.

3) You can move your Photoshop and Lightroom caches from your SSD to your hard disk drive. I realize that your issue is SSD capacity, but since your system also has a HDD, I would still move the caches to the HDD, in order to save "wear and tear" on the SSD, even if the SSD had more capacity than you need. In LR (v5), click Edit / Preferences, and on the File Handling tab, in the Camera Raw Cache Settings section, you can choose the location (drive and folder) for your cache, and also set its maximum size. 

I only use Photoshop Elements (v13), but to relocate its cache, click Edit / Preferences / Performance, and in the Scratch Disks section, select (place a check in the box next to) your HDD, and deselect your SSD. (No option to specify a folder in the drive.) Changes take place when you restart Photoshop.

Hope this helps.


----------



## bwud (Mar 15, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> 3) You can move your Photoshop and Lightroom caches from your SSD to your hard disk drive. I realize that your issue is SSD capacity, but since your system also has a HDD, I would still move the caches to the HDD, in order to save "wear and tear" on the SSD, even if the SSD had more capacity than you need.



Two things:

1) While you can move cache to a different drive, you can't entirely prevent LR from writing to the system drive. When I use photomerge, for example, I'll see many gigabytes of temp data written to C: even though my LR Cache is on F:. 

2) Reliability is an open question, but early indications don't suggest that, save for some environmental factors (e.g. temperature), HDD is more reliable than SSD, or vice versa.

But there is no 'wear and tear' to speak of with a solid state drive. Ignore the generic electrical components like capacitors as HDDs have them too. The main concern with longevity with SSD is flash memory life (program/erase cycles). The argument you are making is reasonable: put cache on an HDD to reduce P/E cycles on the SSD. However I'd point out that HDDs have lifespans associated with use too. Personally, if I'm to have a drive failure, I'd prefer it not be a data drive despite the fact that I have them backed up. If my system drive dies, it's less of a headache.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 15, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm not sure if its what you mean but my laptop has an SSD and a Harddrive.
> 
> Windows, Lightroom and Photoshop run off the SSD.
> 
> ...



He said external/portable SSD. That's a different application. 

1TB SSD's are available for $200, and 500GB SSD's go on sale for under $100 occasionally. Toss the 128 and get one big enough.

I just bought a 1TB SSD yesterday to use as a boot drive for a new PC I have on order. It has a M2 slot, but they currently are limited to 500GB, and I'd like larger. I'll get one when they become available at a good price. I will still use a conventional 4TB drive for data.


----------



## bwud (Mar 15, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It has a M2 slot, but they currently are limited to 500GB, and I'd like larger.



You can get crazy fast PCIe SSDs (i.e. not via the M.2 connector) up to 3.2TB, but you pay through the nose. 

If and when you do get an M.2, take note of what implications it has on your SATA ports. It will certainly deplete your PCIe lanes, but it also may render one or more SATA ports unusable. On my motherboard, installing M.2 prevents SATA 4 and 5 from being used. So to use my fancy Samsung 950 Pro M.2 NVMe, I have to disconnect my optical drive (no big deal) and move one of my HDDs.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 15, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> He said external/portable SSD. That's a different application.



I think you might be confusing the poster to whom I was responding (Hector1970) with the OP. The OP either has -- or is contemplating getting -- a portable / external SSD. I inferred from Hector1970's post that the 128GB SSD in his two-drive laptop system is configured as the boot/OS drive, and that its (internal) HDD is tasked for data storage (i.e., images, documents, et al). _Then, again, perhaps you were responding to Hector1970's post, and not mine._ :'(

@ bwud: You have correctly (if somewhat pedantically) identified what I colloquially referred to as "wear and tear" as the write ("program/erase") cycles of the individual solid state storage circuits. SSD technology is still relatively new, HDDs do have MTBF rates as well, and prices for SSDs are dropping quickly as the technology matures and adoption rates rise. However, for the time being, if I had a combo SSD/HDD system, I'd still rather have to replace an HDD than an SDD _on a cost per unit of storage basis_, all other things being equal.


----------



## bwud (Mar 15, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> @ bwud: You have correctly (if somewhat pedantically) identified what I colloquially referred to as "wear and tear" as the write ("program/erase") cycles of the individual solid state storage circuits. SSD technology is still relatively new, HDDs do have MTBF rates as well, and prices for SSDs are dropping quickly as the technology matures and adoption rates rise. However, for the time being, if I had a combo SSD/HDD system, I'd still rather have to replace an HDD than an SDD _on a cost per unit of storage basis_, all other things being equal.



I wasn't intending to be pedantic. I generally refer to wear-and-tear as a stress/strain type of thing, but sure, flash cycles are mechanical in nature.

You make a fair point regarding the cost per unit storage. The cost of some flash storage absolutely dwarfs that of HDDs. In my current system I have two internal 8TB HDDs and two internal 256GB SDDs, but for the new 512GB SSD I paid about 63 cents per GB, versus under 3 cents per GB on the large spinning drives.

But all else is not equal. In opting for SSD, you're trading capacity+cost for performance.


----------



## LDS (Mar 15, 2016)

bwud said:


> 1) While you can move cache to a different drive, you can't entirely prevent LR from writing to the system drive. When I use photomerge, for example, I'll see many gigabytes of temp data written to C: even though my LR Cache is on F:.



It may happen in these situations (probably not exhaustive):

- Available RAM is low (for any reason), and Windows swaps some to disk to the swap file, usually on the boot disk.

- The application uses some specific OS features (i.e. "memory mapped files") that in Windows may also use the swap file.

- The application uses the user "temp" directory (or any directory under the user profile), again usually on the boot disk.

There is also the case of bad application that always use the boot disk for some temporary storage, I really hope LR/PS are not in this class...

Both the swap file and user directories can be moved to another disk, if needed, of course with a speed penalty if the disk is slower. If there is plenty of RAM, usually the swap file size can be also decreased, to save disk space. Also, if the hibernation feature is enabled, Windows will reserve on the boot disk an amount of space equal to the system RAM. If you don't use it, disable it to save space on a not so large SSD disk.


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 16, 2016)

bwud said:


> I wasn't intending to be pedantic.



Mea culpa. I frequently come across more strident than I intend to in forum posts. When I'm trying to wry, witty or ironic, I must remember to follow my remarks with the appropriate emoticon ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 16, 2016)

bwud said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > It has a M2 slot, but they currently are limited to 500GB, and I'd like larger.
> ...



Yes, I was reading up on the M2 connector and the super fast drives (My new Dell has two M2 Ports, but one is for wi-fi/bluetooth). I decided that a simple, slower, and much cheaper 1TB SSD would be preferred. The cheap SSD's wear out quicker, but since its twice the size, the wear per memory slot will be less since I currently use 335 GB on my boot drive, and thats pretty well loaded with programs and junk. The new one will take a couple of years to get that much on it. I'll format my current one, its actually less than 1.5 years old, so It will be much cleaner.

My lightroom files are the big disk space hogs, I need to reduce them in size. I might just dedicate a 500 GB SSD for LR catalog and cache. I have spare SSD's and hard drives sitting all around. When I get a new PC, I do not even start it up, but clone the hard drive to a SSD and then put the hard drive away in case I need to start over from scratch. Then, I can clone it again.


----------



## bwud (Mar 20, 2016)

16TB SSD 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/224088-behold-the-nandstrocity-samsung-now-shipping-monster-16tb-ssd


----------



## RGF (Mar 20, 2016)

Not sure if this will be helpful, but I had my catalog on an external SSD. Ran fine. Images were on external HHD in a Raid 5 configuration. LR was on the internal SSD.


----------

