PS CS and serious memory problems under OS X (Panther)

TC
Posted By
Thomas_Clement
Feb 15, 2004
Views
1560
Replies
47
Status
Closed
I have a dual 500 Mhz G4 with 1.25 Go of Ram, under OS 9 I can give PS 900000 ko of memory without problem and the system has still enough memory to run nicely.
But under OS X, even when giving to PS only 60 % of the memory (which gives MUCH slower performances than giving 900000 ko in OS 9), the system has still no ram left and is swapping (I can see it in System Activity) !!!! Only PS is opened, nothing else.
680 Mo is used by PS (the 60 %) but the problem is that 600 Mo are ALSO used by inactive memory in more of the first 680 Mo used by PS ! So it seems that even if I ask PS to let a lot of memory to the system, it continues to put a lot of memory in inactive state and the system is swapping (and it’s so slooowwww when swapping).
What should I do ? Is this normal (I don’t know what is this inactive memory for) ? It’s like if I have just 512 Mo of Ram compared to OS 9…

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

R
Ram
Feb 15, 2004
What version of OS X? Therein may lie your problem. Or you could have a bad install, or bad RAM or ….
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 15, 2004
Mac OS X 10.3.2, the install is clean as far as I know. There’s three ram of 256 Mo and one of 512 Mo physically installed, never had problem with the ram, I don’t think the problem is there.
P
povimage
Feb 16, 2004
There are memory problems on the Windows side as well.. Sounds like CS has an inborn memory management problems.

See the following threads:

CS Memory Leak
<http://tinyurl.com/2floe>

PS CS eventual slow down
<http://tinyurl.com/2ja3a>

CS Problems
<http://tinyurl.com/27gb8>

Of course, in each thread it seems that people responding initially deny it’s an issue, but then after users exhaust all the suggestions, they admit that Adobe IS researching a problem along these lines.

That’s what happens when you use proprietary memory management (in effect a mini self-contained OS) and don’t test it on enough hardware and/or real OSes before you release the full version upgrade.. That’s also why other applications generally leave memory management to the OSes. Fighting with modern OSes to control the memory is bound to result in problems sometimes. Especially since BETA testing today goes out to smaller subsets of the user community (as a % of installed users than it did in the past).

Welcome to the land of Version 1.0 as BETA.
P
povimage
Feb 16, 2004
Hmmmmm….. Most of the Windows versions of the problems seem to be on DUAL CPU machines too, as is this instance on Panther..

Hey Adobe, how many BETA testers for PS CS on the Windoze and Mac sides were running Dual CPU installations…? For most ISVs (Independent or Third Party Software Vendors), one could excuse testing on very many "exotic" dual CPU boxes, but Adobe KNOWS that dualies are used by a good number of full-time PS professionals.

Keith
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 16, 2004
Well that’s very bothering, it seems like I must told PS to use only 50 % of the memory to avoid the system to swap. And still the inactive memory is taking 450 Mo for… nothing it seems ! Really I have the impression to have 768 Mo of Ram, that’s a lot slower than in OS 9.
Also I forgot to told that I’m working on huge files size…
B
Buko
Feb 16, 2004
Thomas Get more RAM. its cheap
L
Larryr544
Feb 16, 2004
I agree with Buko. This is a quick way to quickness.
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 16, 2004
Yes of cours, but I don’t have the money right now even if the price is affordable. The problem is not there, the problem is that PS in OS X is far less efficient than in OS 9, I don’t know if it’s an Apple or Adobe problem (Adobe it seems), but something could be done about this.

And for the memory, my 4 slots are busy, so I have to throw away the 256 Mo of Ram for 512 Mo, that makes it more expansive (I get 256 Mo more for the price of 512 Mo).
Actually that’s the reason why I didn’t buy more ram until now but now that I’m on OS X, I’m almost forced to buy more (unfortunately)…
B
Buko
Feb 16, 2004
PS in OS X is far less efficient than in OS 9

Chris Cox has admitted that photoshop is about 5% slower in OSX but this discussion has been covered back when PS7 came out and we were all starting to use OSX. if you were using one of the New G5s It would be plenty fast.

More RAM and having a second drive to put the photoshop scratch on will help you speed things up.
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 16, 2004
With more recent versions of OS X, the speed compared to OS 9 is faster or the same.

And I wish I knew what forums povimage was reading – he seems to be drawing conclusions out of thin air….
P
progress
Feb 16, 2004
think people are hitting the 2gb ram limit faster with CS and OSX which is causing the drag…i cant wait till PS CS can play with all 8gb…

how far off are we chris?
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 16, 2004
I can’t say, of course.
Z
zoozx
Feb 17, 2004
Seeing the same slow downs here.
SV
Steve_Vespucci
Feb 17, 2004
Stomp your foot once for "soon" Chris and twice for "it may not happen in our life time."
P
povimage
Feb 17, 2004
Chrix Cox said:

And I wish I knew what forums povimage was reading – he seems to be drawing conclusions out of thin air….

Ok, Chris, I’ll make this even more explicit than it was in my earliest post on this thread..

Scott Byer (Know Him?) said, at
"PS CS eventual slow down"
<http://tinyurl.com/2ja3a> :

Scott Byer – 12:22pm Feb 5, 2004 Pacific (#11 of 12)

Yes, there might be a problem, and we’re still trying to collect enough information to reproduce the issue and to figure out exactly what’s going on.

-Scott

And Dave Milbutt said in
"CS Problems"
<http://tinyurl.com/27gb8>

If you’ve read any of the threads on this issue you’d know that they suspect something is funky somewhere but they’re having a hard time pinning it down.

Chris, it also doesn’t help track down the issues when you blame it on users; as you posted in that same thread:

we have most of the systems. But the problems don’t happen. That usually means it is some other software, or some non-standard configuration that the user changed that is causing part (or all) of the problems.

Since one of the suggestions Adobe has made to some users on the Windoze/M$ platform side is to "disable Hyperthreading in the BIOS," I’d say at least sometimes that it is Photoshop CS that REQUIRES a "custom configuration" in some cases to work properly. Moreso, your post indicates, as have the posts of other Adobe staff, that there is believed to be some problem, but it hasn’t been isolated yet.

Beyond that Chris, I might note that as helpful as Adobe tech support has tried to be in my case (a dual PIIIe 1gHz system), ImageReady CS still doesn’t even load fully.. It just dies! Their BRILLIANT answer after sending me tech documents on application crashes prepared specifically for PS 7.0? "Reformat your hard drive and do a clean install of PS CS and ImageReady CS. If you aren’t willing to do that, we can’t help you."

Funny thing is ImageReady CS worked fine in the Trial Version, but the Retail upgrade version has never worked since I loaded the software. Maybe I should have foregone the upgrade and simply hacked the trial version, at least the software would probably still work properly then!

I don’t care how helpful the Tech Support people try to be, if the application doesn’t work I deserve a partial refund for the missing ImageReady functionality.

To paraphrase a metaphor, talk about "the vendor always being right."

BTW: We all know that broader end-user/consumer BETA testing WOULD expose the software to more REAL WORLD prouction systems, and you’d see more of these problems then – when ISV’s are supposed to isolate and address them. You’d think that Adobe would ensure the broadest possible BETA testing of its arguably flagship product.. These kinds of issues showing up in PS CS and mine in ImageReady CS, don’t lead one to believe that sufficient time and effort is being spent on bullet-proofing during BETA. When I worked full-time in the IT biz, as a system analyst, EDP auditor, and computer security admin, I would have highlighted these problems and refused project completion payments until they were fixed. I DON’T pull stuff out of thin air, but THANK YOU for playing the toadying sycophantic defender of Adobe’s corporate honor in this heart-warming little tableau, at the least it allows me to point out the facts and relate your own quotes.

HINT 1: Spend more time finding problems and fixing them and LESS time trying to shoot down people who can cite facts.

HINT 2: If are likely to need to contradict yourself, for whatever reason, don’t leave a paper trail.

HINT 3: As was said in an old Monty Python sketch called "Crunchy Frog" when it was suggested that the chocolates bear on their box a large warning of some rather unusual components: "But our sales will plummit".. My answer is, as it was in the sketch, "F___ your sales, we’ve got to protect the public."

Keith
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 17, 2004
You’re still making things up.

We’re looking into what you’re reporting – but we haven’t reproduced it at all. That doesn’t mean we think there’s a problem, it just means that we’re looking into all the credible reports we get.

And you need to read the response to your HT "problem" rather than reposting it.

And you still haven’t got a clue about beta testing…..
P
povimage
Feb 17, 2004
Which quote am I "making up?"

If you’re going to libel me by calling me a liar outright, you better have damn hard evidence buddy boy!

Do it again without proof and Karen Cottle at Adobe legal will get a call from my attorney faster than you can say "upgrade." Go ahead, make my day.

Keith
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 17, 2004
The quotes seem to be accurate – but then you go off into left field and draw conclusions that have nothing to do with the quotes.

(why does this smell more and more like a troll?)
P
povimage
Feb 17, 2004
Chris,

If you disagree with the conclusions I draw, that’s one thing. Saying I’m "making up things" implies I’m making up facts.

The same facts can lead differing parties to differing conclusions, and that I’m willing to accept. The fact remains that users are reporting similar problems with increasing memory that is grabbed by PS CS and is not returned until the application is closed – as opposed to when the open files are closed, etc..

BTW: yeah, that’s it. marginalize me as a "troll" and shift the focus from the apparent BUG in PS CS..

Typical.

Keith
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 17, 2004
OK – you’re pulling your conclusions out of your backside, because they don’t follow from the things you have quoted or things that have ever been said.

Yes, the users are reporting a "problem" that is 100% intended, desired, and normal behavior that hasn’t changed since Photoshop 3.0. There is no "bug" here.

And you’re going off on other tangents that are also quite clearly non-problems.

So yes, it really does look like you’re trolling.
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 17, 2004
Woo, calms please, I did not want to cause this confrontation 😉 So Chris, is this normal ?
There’s only the Finder and PS CS which are opened, PS is using 680 Mo of Ram as I want (60 % of 1122 Mo), BUT the system is also using 413 Mo of inactive Ram (I don’t know what for), this inactvie Ram appeared because of PS it seems and I really feel like this memory is wasted.

Thanks for your help

<http://limbricateur.free.fr/psmemoryusage.jpg>
SB
Scott_Byer
Feb 17, 2004
It can be. OS X is very aggressive about expanding it’s file I/O cache. The best thing you can do is measure your specific system usng Activity Monitor or something more sophisticated like X Resource Graph. Watch free memory. The magic number is 20MB. If *free* memory (not uncommitted or unlocked) falls below that number, OS X gets aggressive about paging application memory out. Time to turn down Photoshop’s memory percentage and restart Photoshop.

-Scott
JB
Joseph_Briggs
Feb 20, 2004
I haven’t seen the slow downs with Photoshop on my workstation but the guy I work with has. He’s got an older 400 or so MHz G4 (sorry, never inspected it closely) with about 800MB of RAM on 10.3.2.

After the slow down, there are a few quirks in the UI. He can click once on a menu and it will display, but he can’t click on a menu item to select it. He has to click and hold then scroll to the item and release to select. When he drags an item to the dock with magnification turned on, magnification works on the first items to react but then the dock holds that pose until he moves the cursor away from the dock. He can still roam the dock and select or drop onto any of the items, it’s just the magnification that gets stuck. Yeah, it’s no big deal, and it’s not like dock magnification is worth anything, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Feb 20, 2004
I have no idea if this will help or not, but a friend (who is also using an older G4) has reported that Photoshop CS slows to a crawl if he opens old files (that were created in Photoshop 6 or 7) but he has no problems with files that originated in CS.

I have suggested that he tries resaving the files to a new name from CS but have not heard if that has helped.
A
Asa
Feb 22, 2004
Hi All,
I think apple needs to setup OSX with a paging system that the user can point X’s swap where they want it. Windows as lame as it is has paging that can be pointed to a different disk. I am one of those that has a G4-400 with 2 gigs of ram and do not see a big drop with PS6-7 slow downs. I do see that OS9.2.2 w/ps7 is still twice as fast then ps8 running os 10.3.2. OSX still has a long way to go before I would jump full time into it.

….Asa
GP
Graham_Phillips
Feb 22, 2004
You can put the virtual disk on any partition you like if you know Unix.
B
Buko
Feb 22, 2004
There are are apps that can switch the swap file to wherever you want it. SwapCop is one. I played with this when OSX was first released. if you don’t know what you are doing this can cause serious problems. I learned the hard way. with OSX you are better of leaving the SWAP files where the system puts them.
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 22, 2004
I do see that OS9.2.2 w/ps7 is still twice as fast then ps8 running os 10.3.2. OSX still has a long way to go before I would jump full time into it.

Sigh…
Apple has made dramatic improvements since Mac OS X 10.0.0, I hope they will continue in that way.
A
Asa
Feb 23, 2004
Graham, Buko I use Linux not Unix but I am not a real expert at it. It would be easier and proper if Apple fixed this problem, man how much are you expected to know. The way it is advertised…start it up use it, you should not have to be a super geek to get a better performance. As much as I hate to say it <sigh> a windows box, out of the box is fast and you don’t have to know squat about anything, just order it.

….Asa

Buko >> There are are apps that can switch the swap file to wherever you want it. SwapCop is one. I played with this when OSX was first released. if you don’t know what you are doing this can cause serious problems. I learned the hard way. with OSX you are better of leaving the SWAP files where the system puts them.<<

This is where the super geek appears.

Graham >> You can put the virtual disk on any partition you like if you know Unix.<<

This say’s it all.
B
Buko
Feb 23, 2004
a windows box, out of the box is fast and you don’t have to know squat about anything, just order it.

that’s where we disagree I think that a PC is crap out of the box and you need to know everything about the system to patch all the security holes so you don’t get some god awful virus that will destroy everything or let some hacker in to steal everything.
P
PShock
Feb 23, 2004
The way it is advertised…start it up use it, you should not have to be a super geek to get a better performance.

And that is indeed, the way it works – for the majority of users. You don’t have to be a "super geek" but if you’re going to use professional applications in a professional environment, it DOES behoove you to know as much about your tools as you can.

On the issue of swap disks, there is nothing "broke" in OSX for Apple to fix and there is no real reason to change the location of default swap disk. However, Photoshop uses it’s own swap/scratch disk scheme and if you specify that disk to be the same one that the OS uses, you WILL run into performance issues because they’re fighting for the same space – the HD has to work overtime to keep up (ie – slow). As always, Photoshop will perform MUCH better with a secondary, dedicated scratch disk which is separate from the OS.

-phil
A
Asa
Feb 24, 2004
Phil
OSX does have problems, it does need it’s own swap space IMHO. If someone out there has done the unix hack could you post if indeed there is a improvement in OSX? Thanks.

Photoshop indeed needs a seprate disk for swaping as PS is swap disk app. It always uses a swap equal to the amount ram plus five, give it 15 gigs to be safe. Who knows anymore? test to see what works for you.

Buko

that’s where we disagree I think that a PC is crap out of the box<<

If you do not connect to the internet you are ok, a PC out of the box is fast. Buko I agree a PC is crap, still fast though.

you need to know everything about the system to patch all the security
holes so you don’t get some god awful virus that will destroy everything or let some hacker in to steal everything.<<

Even after patching you are still at risk. Some folks hate gates so much they will do anything to…ruff him up…cool idea <smile>

….Asa
B
Buko
Feb 24, 2004
My favorite, fast crap.

<said with tongue planted firmly in cheek>

I’ve said it before I’d rather use a slower Mac than have to use Windows of any flavor.
VL
Venicia_L_2
Feb 25, 2004
Asa,

And others.

I can post instructions to change the default the OSX swap file onto a partition of your choice. First, I have to post a "dummy" message to make sure I don’t get unwanted line breaks in a data table I need to display. If no one objects, I’ll first post that "trial" message, then the instructions.

VL
VL
Venicia_L_2
Feb 25, 2004
Lucky for everyone that the propeller on my beanie wasn’t turning fast enough and I had to look up the original references that I used to alter the OSX swap file location.

Here they are – MUCH better information than I could have given:

< http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200012150214401 38>

<http://www.resexcellence.com/hack_html_01/06-01-01.shtml>

You’ll need to be familiar with Terminal and vi or pico text editors. You can also use TextEdit. For some reason, I couldn’t use it properly from the command line.

There are some benchmarks of performance before and after the swap file change. But this is from early OSX. I have used it with 10.2.6 and 10.2.8. I am not using 10.3 and don’t know how this technique relates to that.

VL
A
Asa
Feb 25, 2004
VL

Thanks for the information. I’ll give it a try soon. I do think this is where Apple should step in and set this up for users.

….Asa
B
Buko
Feb 25, 2004
SwapCop is so much easier.
VL
Venicia_L_2
Feb 25, 2004
And there’s related discussion of this topic here:

<http://www.macintouch.com/panreader22.html#feb25>

VL
P
PShock
Feb 25, 2004
SwapCop is so much easier.

Yep. My swap was located on another volume the whole time I was using Jaguar – used SwapCop to do it. Pretty simple, even for a non-techie like me. However, I didn’t notice any difference in performance so when I moved to Panther, I didn’t bother moving it again. One thing that helps is saving documents to a separate volume. The only thing added to my OS volume are applications.

The only time moving OSX’s swap would be beneficial is if your boot volume is low on free space and/or heavily fragmented. With today’s huge drives for cheap, it really shouldn’t be a problem.

-phil
B
Buko
Feb 25, 2004
since you need the Photoshop scratch disk to be a different drive than the SWAP file It is much easier to leave the SWAP with the system.
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 27, 2004
Povimage/Keith and forum readers;

I’m sorry for the misunderstanding that occurred in our earlier discussion. I shouldn’t have let it get so far out of hand.

I also apologize to any other forum members who may have been distracted or upset by this discussion.

In the future I’ll try to phrase my responses in a way that won’t spark another such thread.

With my sincere apologies;

Chris Cox
Adobe Systems Incorporated
JW
Jay_W_Walden
Feb 28, 2004
I just installed 8.0 a few weeks ago and immediately noticed a problem with slowdowns that I had never had with 7.0 (I use Jaguar on a G4 Dual 800, 1.5 gig RAM). In fact, at times (although not often) Photoshop 8.0 will just stop functioning mid-process and my hard drive’ll sound like it’s in a non-stop cycle of writing. When this happens the Force-Quit pane won’t even appear when commanded and the only option is to shut down the computer itself. Most of the time, though, the application just slows to a crawl. I’ve also noticed my hard drive space is eaten down to nothing quickly.

I should maybe point out that most of my PS files open up to 1.5 – 2 gigs, plus scratch disk space. I use a 35 gig dedicated Ultra-Wide SCSI II hard drive for these files. The problem still occurs in smaller files, but it takes longer.

It’s almost as if the application can’t perform any post-processing flush – much like the old Mac OS 9.0 – 9.1 had a problem deleting temp files (causing the hard drive to fill up invisibly) until Apple fixed it in 9.2.

I figured this might be a quirk in the new version and so I came to the Adobe site to find out if anything’s been talked about regarding this. I’m glad to see Adobe’s already been made aware and that they’re looking into it. Certainly I’m frustrated with the current performance (very!), but I have great faith that a patch will be in the making in (hopefully) the very near future. In the mean time, perhaps this post can offer some clues.
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 28, 2004
When PS crash (or if you force quit it) while you’re working, the application does not delete temp files that are used on the scratch disk. I had to delete a more than 1 Go file on my scratch disk after a crash last time. I used a soft called Tri-Cleaner which runs on OS 9 but I think the development of this app has stopped, I don’t know which app can do the same job on OS X. As far as I can recall, it’s not just easy as making these files visible to trash them, right ?
IL
Ian_Lyons
Feb 28, 2004
Thomas,

Photoshop normally cleans these files out by itself when it restarts.
TC
Thomas_Clement
Feb 29, 2004
I didn’t know that, I was always deleting temp files after a crash beacuse I was used to PS 6 which did not delete the temp files on the next restart.

Thanks
MO
Mike_Ornellas
Feb 29, 2004
The best thing about all this?……… is that we exist…….

everything else is, shall we say, ………

a bug?

;o)
CC
Chris_Cox
Mar 1, 2004
Jay – what you’re describing sounds exactly like a known Apple issue. They should have a fix available soon.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections