Editing pictures in an external SSD

[Pablo]

I have been thinking about keeping my full workflow in an 1tb external ssd instead of my internal hard drive to reduce clutter in my computer. My question is how fast does the drive have to be to transfer my edits? is the Samsung x5 2gb/s read/write speed good or can I get away with 1000 mb/s speeds?

 

[gordon_g]

I'm a little confused by your question.... The drive doesn't transfer your edits... it just needs to pull the File into your post Processor and then when you hit save, save it back to your drive... a 20MB file on that drive would open and save as fast as if it was on your local HD maybe even faster. A thunderbolt 3 drive transfers data at 40 MB/s and the read write speeds of the drive are 2800MB/s and 2300MB/s.
Here is a great website to estimate transfer data rates File transfer Calculator

 

[Pablo]

Thanks for the reply. Does this mean that any drive's read write speed won't matter for editing? This is a confusing topic!

 

[DRwyoming]

Yeah, as Gordon says the processing really occurs primarily in RAM though PS will make use of a scratch disk for large operations (e.g. focus stacking a lot of images). For just file saving you don't need a crazy fast hard drive and plenty of photographers maintain their photo libraries on the cloud which is very slow compared to most hard drives.

FWIW, I keep my photo library on an internal 12 TB hard drive that's separate from my system drive and also back it up to a pair of similar external USB hard drives. But my Lightroom catalog and PS scratch drive are on an internal 1TB SSD. Having the LR catalog, previews and the PS scratch disk on a reasonably fast drive (e.g. SSD) does help when loading the catalog and helps when PS runs out of memory and needs to start using the scratch disk.

 

[Pablo]

Ok some clarification. I don't use LR so I won't need to import into a catalogue. secondly I will use the drive to store my RAW files not as backup but as the storage for my workflow. Another hard drive I own serves as back up

 

[Charles Loy]

Couple comments too. I recently copied by dragging the folder (large files) to another hard drive. Took a long while to save it. Did I do it incorrectly?, above suggests its instant. I see now, he is starting to save to a new drive, not moving files to a new drive.
And my computer repair fellow suggests SSD drives run very hot and he strongly rejects them. Is that a fact or ?

 

[DRwyoming]

Ok some clarification. I don't use LR so I won't need to import into a catalogue. secondly I will use the drive to store my RAW files not as backup but as the storage for my workflow. Another hard drive I own serves as back up

That really doesn't change the discussion though it removes the LR catalog loading issue.

Basically all that happens when you start editing a raw file is that the contents of that file is copied into memory (RAM) and processing begins. The actual editing steps are not doing anything to the stored raw file, actually even when you save a PS edited image the original raw file is not changed. So basically the only speed issue is how long it takes to open up that file which isn't long with any modern hard drive.

But as mentioned above PS does make use of scratch disk space for large operations that exceed the RAM allotments set up in your PS preferences (and limited by total RAM on your computer). So it can help to have a reasonably fast scratch disk for large operations.

 

[Steve]

Couple comments too. I recently copied by dragging the folder (large files) to another hard drive. Took a long while to save it. Did I do it incorrectly?, above suggests its instant. I see now, he is starting to save to a new drive, not moving files to a new drive.
And my computer repair fellow suggests SSD drives run very hot and he strongly rejects them. Is that a fact or ?

Nope, that sounds normal - no worries. In that case, you're moving the actual files, so it will take time. Loading a single file into the editing program is comparatively much faster.

Maybe SSDs run warmer than regular drives (although, I've touched a few warm spinning drives right out of the computer), but there's no moving parts either. It's been my experience - and many others - that they are actually more reliable than spinning disks. In fact, most new computers include them and they are a pricier option. If they were failing at a higher rate than normal drives, manufacturers wouldn't touch them. Anecdotally, I have a few SSDs I use on my trips (Samsung T5s) and we've never had an issue after transferring around what amounts to hundreds of thousands of files. In addition, I know of no one who has had one of those drives fail (although, it's not a large sample size).

 

[PhilcTx]

And my computer repair fellow suggests SSD drives run very hot and he strongly rejects them. Is that a fact or ?

Here's some info on SSD temps: https://harddrivegeek.com/ssd-temperature/

I have a pretty new Dell desktop with 2 internal and one external SSDs. One internal Micron NVMe SSD is the heavily used C: drive, also an internal Samsung 860 EVO SSD for an F:/ editing scratch drive, and a Samsung 870 QVO SSD housed in an external dock for video files.

CrystalDiskInfo utility reports temps of 52 deg C for the NVMe, 28 deg C for the F: scratch drive, and 35 deg C for the external SSD.
For comparison there's also an internal D: drive that's a traditional spinner hard disk - its at 37 deg C.

Bottom line: over 70 deg C appears to be the danger zone for SSDs. Based on what I'm seeing for SSD temps in my system I don't see a problem.

 

[Charles Loy]

Thanks Steve and Phil - They are so popular now I had assumed all along he was off base with his hot comments. He's very adamant about it.
I just ordered one and will be using it. Thanks again

 

[gordon_g]

Couple comments too. I recently copied by dragging the folder (large files) to another hard drive. Took a long while to save it. Did I do it incorrectly?, above suggests its instant. I see now, he is starting to save to a new drive, not moving files to a new drive.
And my computer repair fellow suggests SSD drives run very hot and he strongly rejects them. Is that a fact or ?

As Steve said coping one file is much different then coping a folder with a bunch of file. and what you did is perfectly fine. SSD do run warm that is normal, if your IT fellow strongly reject them, I would find a new IT guy... they are much more reliable.

 

[Graham Clark]

Anecdotally, I have a few SSDs I use on my trips (Samsung T5s) and we've never had an issue after transferring around what amounts to hundreds of thousands of files. In addition, I know of no one who has had one of those drives fail (although, it's not a large sample size).

Same here, this pair have been in some pretty hostile environments over the years and have performed flawlessly

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[MartyD]

I used to have a computer science professor say "Don't use a Mac truck when a bicycle will do!" I am not saying speed isn't important, but you have to be able to take advantage of that speed. Connecting a fast drive to a fast interface will yield excellent performance when a demand is placed on it, but a fast drive connected to a slow interface will only perform at the speed of the interface.

I have not heard of any issues with SSDs running hot but I have heard that computers can run hotter at times with SSDs simply because the processor can run consistently faster because there is less delay in the I/O. I understand that SSDs do have a life span based on number of operations and the electronics will just wear out. I don't know how that time compares to mechanical drives.

With all of that said, if my storage requirements are less than 1tb I would use SSDs. I think ideally the OS, apps, and scratch/cache should all be located on an SSD and document storage can be on what is economical for capacity.

 

[PhilcTx]

I understand that SSDs do have a life span based on number of operations and the electronics will just wear out. I don't know how that time compares to mechanical drives.

There's some formulas used to project SSD lifespans. The example given in article below projects a typical SSD lifespan of approx 342 years.

How Long Does an SSDs Last? | Calculate Your SSD’s Lifespan

Learn how long your SSD will last and how to maximize their lifespan with our comprehensive guide.

www.enterprisestorageforum.com

For hard disks it's recommended to replace every 3-5 years on average.

Prosoft Engineering, Inc.

Prosoft Engineering Inc, offers software to undelete your important files, detect malware, monitor your computer, and create backups.

www.prosofteng.com

342 vs 5 yrs.

 

[MartyD]

There's some formulas used to project SSD lifespans. The example given in article below projects a typical SSD lifespan of approx 342 years.

How Long Does an SSDs Last? | Calculate Your SSD’s Lifespan

Learn how long your SSD will last and how to maximize their lifespan with our comprehensive guide.

www.enterprisestorageforum.com

For hard disks it's recommended to replace every 3-5 years on average.

Prosoft Engineering, Inc.

Prosoft Engineering Inc, offers software to undelete your important files, detect malware, monitor your computer, and create backups.

www.prosofteng.com

342 vs 5 yrs.

You made my day!! Thanks for the links! I had to do a little math with the numbers from my drive but I am no longer going to worry about the lifespan of my SSDs. I hope I didn't just jinx myself!

My 970 EVO NVME is warranted for 5 years or 600TB written. In checking the Samsung utility it has written 25TB since installation about 5 months ago or about 5TB per month. 600TB/5TB per month gives about 120 months or 10 years life span. If I read their example correctly they are calculating using a drive with 3000TB lifespan and writing 8.75TB per year giving 342 years of service. I don't believe read cycles have much impact on the drive lifespan.

If I understand the calculations correctly for my EVO, the expectation is for each bit to handle 300 write cycles on average before failure. The EVO is one of my work drives and my system partition is on a Western Digital Black 500GB NVME and it is also rated at 600TB life span. The WD utility does not tell me TB written but shows a % of life remaining and it shows 100%.

Under normal usage even as a system drive with regular system/app updates and cache/catalog usage I don't think lifespan is ever going to be an issue. If the drive is just going to be used as a storage drive it could well last 300 years.

 

[abc123brian]

I have been using external HDD for many years and bought an external SSD last month. The import speed increaded but editing stayed about the same and is about the same as editing on an internal drive. The data with one file isn’t much, but many files is. I don’t do any Batch editing anymore, but you might see a difference there. I doubt you will see a huge difference between the two SSDs as they are both going to be very fast.

 

[dabhand16]

One thing to consider when using SSDs is that as far as I know, if an SSD goes down there is no way of retrieving anything from it, where an HDD will 1) often give a warning that it is not well by making noises, 2) if it does go down the data can usually be recovered.
I'm not saying don't use SSDs - I use them too - but BACK UP frequently to to at least 2 separate drives-(and ideally store one off site) to be safe(r).

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

By far, the biggest improvement for me in editing as been

1. MEMORY: I have 64GB, and now wish (after some heavy panoramic editing) I could up that to 128GB (but the motherboard is maxed out).
2. SCRATCH: The addition of an internal SSD m.2 NVMe drive (PC Express rather than SATA, if you have a choice) to use as a scratch drive. This is especially true of you're not using massive amounts of RAM, because PS will move to the scratch drive as soon as memory starts petering out. Configure your ACR cache to use this drive as well.

There are other considerations, such as bulk read/write operations, importing/exporting, but you mentioned editing as your main consideration; as others said, this is mainly a memory-intensive process, including scratch.

Chris

 

[joe43]

I have found that my1 TB SSD drive enclosed in plastic can run warm even when transferring about 1000 files. When my old laptop needed to be replaced, I took out the fairly new 1 TB SSD replacement drive and repurposed it as an external SSD drive in an aluminum 2.5 inch case with a USB 3 A to USB3 A cable. The case I got is made by Sabrent. It was very easy to install. And it cost about $10.

Sabrent USB 3.0 to 2.5" SSD/SATA External Hard Drive Aluminum Enclosure, Black (EC-UK30) - Newegg.com

Buy Sabrent USB 3.0 to 2.5" SSD/SATA External Hard Drive Aluminum Enclosure, Black (EC-UK30) with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!

www.newegg.com

I suggest that anyone needing an external SSD drive consider doing the same thing. But the SSD drive without a case and then get a case that best matches your port needs. Enclosure cases are made by many and come in different sizes (M.2, 2.5 inch,etc) and with different cables to support different ports on your computer. And the cables that come with them are usually better made (more robust) than the cable that comes with a regular SSD drive.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I keep my images and my LR catalog on a OWC Envoy Pro EX w/thunderbolt 3 OWCTB3ENVP20 connected to my 2019 I mac pro thunderbolt port. If needed I have my images and catalog on a fast SSD that I can plug into my MacBook Pro and hence why I keep my catalog on the external drive ... I keep things simple and only use one catalg. I use carbon copy cloner to back up my primary external drive to 3 other SSD (for internal use) but used in aluminum enclosures as Joe43 mentions above. I find more slow down in the LR software than I do in having the image and catalog resident on my external SSD and the LR program is still running on my iMac but accessing catalog data from the external SSD.