Large Catalog - big and slow
I have multiple large drives with about 110,000 - 200,000 raw files each
I would ideally like one huge catalog with all images but am willing to have a separate catalog for each drive.
I am considering moving from lightroom (my lightroom catalog for same drive is about 60g and the program loads and is useable nearly instantly.)
I just imported about 110,000 raw images into a new C1 catalog
the size of the catalog is 122g
that seems a bit large since it is more than twice the size of the LR catalog files
Does that seem correct to those of you with large catalogs?
Aside from file size the real drawback is how slow it is. let me explain.
Virus scan turned off for these tests
System drive is internal and C
Catalog drive is internal and D
Current working on files are internal F (not used in this catalog)
(Drives are all separate physical disks)
Drive O is a usb3 external with 110,000 photos on it
It took nearly 3 days to build a catalog of 110,000 photos
after building I checked the integrity
did a defrag of the catalog drive
did a sync of the catalog just to make sure all meta and previews were included
at least one reboot
After opening C1
with O drive active
C1 takes only about 20 or so gigs of ram (with at least 15 gig still available windows reports hard faults happening - memory checks are fine and other large programs can use more memory without as many hard faults)
the activities window said it was loading meta data and the timer said it would take 1 hour 43min. I waited....
Did a reboot
did an integrity check
did a defrag
did a reboot
Retry -SAME thing
Does this seem right?
Small catalogs are workable (never made a small catalog with more than 10,000 photos (a current working number)
Sessions are VERY speedy even faster than LR
I would ideally like one huge catalog with all images but am willing to have a separate catalog for each drive.
I am considering moving from lightroom (my lightroom catalog for same drive is about 60g and the program loads and is useable nearly instantly.)
I just imported about 110,000 raw images into a new C1 catalog
the size of the catalog is 122g
that seems a bit large since it is more than twice the size of the LR catalog files
Does that seem correct to those of you with large catalogs?
Aside from file size the real drawback is how slow it is. let me explain.
Virus scan turned off for these tests
System drive is internal and C
Catalog drive is internal and D
Current working on files are internal F (not used in this catalog)
(Drives are all separate physical disks)
Drive O is a usb3 external with 110,000 photos on it
It took nearly 3 days to build a catalog of 110,000 photos
after building I checked the integrity
did a defrag of the catalog drive
did a sync of the catalog just to make sure all meta and previews were included
at least one reboot
After opening C1
with O drive active
C1 takes only about 20 or so gigs of ram (with at least 15 gig still available windows reports hard faults happening - memory checks are fine and other large programs can use more memory without as many hard faults)
the activities window said it was loading meta data and the timer said it would take 1 hour 43min. I waited....
Did a reboot
did an integrity check
did a defrag
did a reboot
Retry -SAME thing
Does this seem right?
Small catalogs are workable (never made a small catalog with more than 10,000 photos (a current working number)
Sessions are VERY speedy even faster than LR
0
-
You don't say what version of CO 8 you're running ? 0 -
8.1.120 64bit 0 -
I'm having the same issue, just installed 8.2,(64 bit windows) and a catalogue of even 20.000 raw files is completely unworkable, even when it does load, previews and loading is super slow, and general memory usage of the Capture One client is 8-10 gb which seems super excessive.
My computers is fairly beefy a 6 core i7 and 24 gb ram, should not be an issue and lightroom works fluently with similar catalogue size.
Additionally it does not feel like the capture one gui api is hardware accelerated.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
3 comments