Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Preview generating slow as snail after update to 8.1

BeO
Top Commenter
Hi,

After installing 8.1, C1 backed up my catalog (about 700 images). 8.1 can open my catalog, but when I click on 'All images' in the library tool, it re-generates my previews. Currently, after 2 hours, it says 'generating preview 75 of 104.

The weird thing is, apart from this snail performance, that the 4 cores CPU is nearly idle (max. 20 %), RAM is 4 GB used ( 8 GB total); the raw files reside on a NAS storage in my network.

With 8.0, a real import to the NAS, adjusting and preview generating seemed a lot faster.

Anybody have had the same issue?

BeO
0

Comments

5 comments

Date Votes
  • BeO
    Top Commenter
    Is it worthwhile looking at Media Pro (in combination with C1) or do you share my assumption that the integration between the two will not be improved, or even that Media Pro will be abandoned by Phase One in favour of better catalog /DAM features in C1, in the future?

    Thanks
    BeO
    0
  • mli20
    A look into the Media Pro forum would certainly suggest that Media Pro is a marooned product.

    Robust DAM features in COP8 would presuppose a complete redesign of the database/catalog. There are signs that P1 is aware of this, but if and when this will materialize is anybodys guess.

    I believe that a number of COP8 users right now are using a third-party DAM program. In my opinion it would be wise of P1 to focus on COP8s raw conversion and tethering capabilities, and on top of that provide integration with third-party DAM programs, much like the DxO Optics Pro/Lightroom combination. Seamless integration is key in today's world.

    Cheers,
    Mogens
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="mli20" wrote:
    Seamless integration is key in today's world.



    Up to a point.

    Sidecar files and everything that approach is supposed to offer introduces "standards" for associated image information (IPTC, et al) and ought to be a sensible and relatively technology independent means by which data can be exchanged between systems and technologies. It may not always work though.

    If you want full and reliable integration "guaranteed" to continue through future technological changes and operational platforms (if such a guarantee is possible) then you are really talking one common product family with (presumably but not certain) a single core development strategy. Basically what Adobe have attempted to deliver in recent years. I suspect that their subscription model is a requirement of such a strategy in the long term are it;s the only way to manage and corral code into a known working set and avoid the excessive needs of trying to support old and new on a mix and match basis.

    The downside is likely to be the need to keep up with hardware technology investment to provide the power that the latest greatest software will demand if it is to work effectively.

    So I tend to agree with focussing in the core product and allowing others to specialise in DAM software (as has always been the case in the large budget professional businesses like photo agencies and photo libraries). However from a development point if view and in the absence of an industry standard "data exchange" option that covers all the bases this leaves the developers exposed to the whims of others and, presumably, having to licence multiple sets of alternative technology (or interfaces to it) in order to have any sort of product at all. Then take the criticisms when the third party stuff does not work very well after an update.

    On that basis we might also suggest that there is no need to have multiple camera manufacturers in the same technology area and reducing to one would greatly simplify everything for everyone with 99.9% if those looking at an image not caring much how and by what method it was created.

    One of the problems with database design is to understand how best to obtain a reasonable balance of performance when the needs of real time record (image) processing and efficient mass storage are somewhat different. With Google scale budgets one can probably find ways around that using "Cloud" architecture. It's not so easy on a desktop device or even a fairly substantial server where some server expert might be able to fine tune every aspect of the system.

    It's bad enough trying to work on such matter when you are in control of your own software. Attempting to do so when you are at the mercy of whatever a number of third parties decide to do must be the source of sleepless nights for developers.

    So whilst I tend to agree that specialism may seem to offer strong choice and better results for the consumer I am not totally convinced that it can be made to work truly effectively in the medium to long term and so I am not too hopeful of it being a real solution even if it is adopted as a policy.

    In any case, users will still find reasons to criticise the way things work or the partnerships that would need to be created to make such an approach effective.

    My thoughts, for what they are worth.


    Grant
    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter
    What we call "workflow" should be a straight through process (STP).

    Make or buy, or partner, or comply to a industry standard. These are the ways I am aware of.

    There is no to little industry standard (except Lightroom / plugins as a "defacto" standard maybe:-), but not for raw rather for tiff, if I am not mistaken.

    P1 does not have a partnership I am aware of, but they bought Media Pro, if I am correct, and they make a catalog on their own. There is either no clear strategy, as they did both, buy and make, and neither way it is fully satisfying, or they changed the strategy.

    The problem we users face is that we do not know P1's strategy, roadmap or however you call it, P1 does not share this information with us (again, if I am not mistaken).

    My actual problem seems to be a rather poor performance with a small catalog if driven on a network. I actually wonder how users with tens of thousands of images can actually work with or upgrade to a newer version of C1. What do they do differently...

    Cheers,
    BeO

    P.S. I don't think there should only be ONE software vendor, there must be competition to move things forward...
    0
  • BeO
    Top Commenter
    My performance problem seems to be solved for now 😄 , it was a setting on the NAS. Using LAN instead of WLAN and activating "Jumbo frames" in the LAN connections did the trick in my 1GB network. 240 images, importing, adjusting and preview generating in about 15 minutes is acceptable.

    Thanks,
    BeO
    0

Post is closed for comments.