Generally speaking import is slower than export. Right ?

DB version : 11.2, 10.2
Because of the extra validations like Foreign key, ...etc, , Isn't import usually slower than export ?
If yes, By what percentage will it be slower for a regular dump which has 'regular' tables without LOB, CLOB.. etc ?

I can not think of any situation where export will be faster. Export just reads the dictionary and grabs information. Import needs to create all of the objects. For indexes, it needs to build the indexes, which can take lots of time.
As for how much more time... it is pretty much impossible to say. If you have indexes, it could take a long time to build indexes, it really depends on what objects are in the dump file. If you have statistics of subpartitioned tables, recreating all of those statistics could take a long time. How busy is your system/db. If not too busy, you could try the parallel option of Data Pump to use multiple processes to get the job done a little faster.
Dean

Similar Messages

Cs6 imports media slower than cs5

This post is inspired mostly by this user over on the creativecow forum - http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1035985#1036017
After he posted, I got to thinking, is it really that much slower? He and I have similar systems and setup practically identical, yet his media takes upwards of 30-45 seconds before the interface is usable again. My system takes about 4 seonds to import a 2mp jpg, a bit longer for other files, but nothing like this guy. So I opened up AE v10 on my Macbook Pro and watched that same file pop right into the project panel near instantly.
What's up with slower import times, and how do we fix that? Wait for Adobe Next? I hope that's not the answer, unless it's coming out tomorrow for this guy's sake. It doesn't make sense that his system, nearly identical to mine, takes 10-15 times as long to import a file.
For reference, I'm running all apps on 240gb Intel SSD, media and projects stored on 3tb 7200rpm internal hdd connected to 6gb/s sata port, with 32gb of HyperX RAM, and Win7.

Ok, after looking through the permissions check boxes and making sure the user account has full control, etc, still can't get files from the Explorer window to import as fast as using the import dialog box, which is really clunky, but oh well, it gets files in faster and it works. So new work flow habbit if you're experiencing slow imports on your files from dragging them from the Explorer window into the AE project panel - USE import dialog box.
Back to work...

The left speaker has lower volume than the right speaker of my pavilion g4-1202ax..

please help me with this problem..
the left speaker has low volume..
but the balance is equal..
what should i do??
is any one there wants to help me??

I tried tightning the cables to the computer too.

IMPORT TAKES LONG TIME THAN EXPORT

Hi,
My database is of
BANNER
Oracle Database 10g Enterprise Edition Release 10.2.0.4.0 - 64bi
PL/SQL Release 10.2.0.4.0 - Production
CORE 10.2.0.4.0 Production
TNS for Solaris: Version 10.2.0.4.0 - Production
NLSRTL Version 10.2.0.4.0 - Production
EXPORT the schema which is of around 358 GB size
expdp username/password@TEST directory=DATAPUMP dumpfile=TEST_SEP22_%U.dmp logfile=TEST_SEP22.log schemas=TEST parallel=6 exclude=statistics
The export completed in 30 minutes
When started to import into another schema in the same server even using parallel=6 it takes around 15 hours.Can anyone say why it takes a long time to import.
impdp username/password@TEST directory=DATAPUMP dumpfile=TEST_SEP22_%U.dmp logfile=TESTIMP_SEP22.log remap_schema=TEST:TEST_R1 remap_tablespace=TS_TEST:TS_TEST_R1 parallel=6
Please advice.
Thnks in advance

ora wrote:
Is there any parameter to make the import faster still in 10g
Please adviceAdvice: OPen the fine Utilities reference manual found at tahiti.oracle.com, and check the section on DataPump. THere you will find listed and explained all of the available parameters. I'm sure you will find some of them promising for performance improvement.
The reason the import takes longer than the export is because of all the internal houskeeping going on in relation to every INSERT that is processed. The export is simply reading the db, then writing to a flat file.

Import AC3 5.1, export only stereo

hello
this is my second issue.
I have audio files in 48khz AC3 5.1, I can import them to my m footage, but from that moment on it is only stereo.
Premeiere Elemty V13 does not support AC3 5.1?
I am also not able to tell PremElemts to use my ASIO, it only shows a WDM-driver which is not active on my computer, there is only ASIO and my window 7 sound does the "bling" on every speaker in the testpanel.
(my sound equipment does AC3 5.1 I make the surroundfiles by myself, in VEGAS they work correctly -tested this on a computer with my friend...the files are OK)
togehter with my 60P issue those issues would bring me to ask the community.
from ADOBE there is no answer except :"we support AC3" but AC3 is not AC3 - there is 5.1 which I use and 2.0 which I dont use.
brgds
Peter

helloyou are answering faster than I could check it.;-)
I shure will come back if threre are more questions. wont let go someone who knows..!
I am very surprised about your competence, from which I hope I can make use.surround is not THAT important. the 60P issue was much heavier. my little testvideo looked realy bad in 30P...now that I can export 60P I will try to do some 5.1 videos.
I will read your instructions and try them. I will let you know.not today, today I am checking other issues.
thank you very muchbrgds and have a successful new week
peter
Von: A.T. Romano <[email protected]>
An: Peter Kremeier <[email protected]>
Gesendet: 18:59 Sonntag, 18.Januar 2015
Betreff: import AC3 5.1, export only stereo
import AC3 5.1, export only stereo
created by A.T. Romano in Premiere Elements - View the full discussionPeter Premiere Elements (any version) does not offer 5.1 channel sound in any of its burn to end products - not Dolby Digital 5.1, AAC 5.1, Windows Media Audio 10 Professional 5.1....I am understanding AC3 as representing Dolby Digital which could be stereo (2 channel) or 5.1 channel (6 channels). But, you do have limited opportunities to export to file a file that has 5.1 channel audio. It is not going to be Dolby Digital 5.1. It will beAAC 5.1 or a Windows Media Audio 10 Professional 5.1 channel. The key to using even those limited possibilities is to be working from aproject preset described for use with 5.1 channel audio. And, not all the Adobe project presets come with 5.1 channel included in its description.The answer has been to make your own project preset to include 5.1 before opening your new project using your user created project preset as the project presetin your new project. I have done extensive and innovative work in the matter of Premiere Elements and 5.1 channel. The following is the first in a series of reports of how tos on thismatter.ATR Premiere Elements Troubleshooting: PE11: Exporting a 1080p50 or 1080p60 file with 5.1 Channel Audio I have other blog posts on this matter in the same location as the above. And, I will posts the other links if you are interested. Please let me know if you havequestions or need clarification on the matter. Thank you. ATR If the reply above answers your question, please take a moment to mark this answer as correct by visiting: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7107836#7107836 and clicking ‘Correct’ below the answer Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed an image in your message please visit the thread in the forum and click the camera icon: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7107836#7107836 To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at , click "Following" at the top right, & "Stop Following" Start a new discussion in Premiere Elements by email or at Adobe Community For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1516624.

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

InDesign CC responds slower than CS6 - any advice?

I've been using a trial of InDesign CS6 which ran smoothly for a month. Today I upgraded to InDesign CC.
I've only been using it today but there are detectable and annoying pauses when performing the following actions
Placing and relinking files
Exporting to PDF
Creating new files
Save as...
Anyone else experiencing this?
Using Windows 7 Ultimate
16GB Ram
64 bit OS
I have 250 GB SD drive for my software and a 3TB drive for my files.
I'm not great with the hardware so if I need to supply any other info please let me know!
Thanks
Ruth

I rebuilt all my preferences and that led to some kind of discovery. Starting InDesign CC everthing works ok (though the drawing tools are slightly slower than in CS6, creating a new page for example is much faster). All the following things mainly have an impact on drawing tools (pen tool, rectangle tool etc. placing multiple images is also affected but maybe because an image frame has to be drawn). After activating the application frame things start to slow down a bit. If I open the collapsed panels on right side things get slowed down again and the biggest hit on performance is evident when the information panel is open.
I wanted to record a screen-capture again but this is so slow that it does not represent the bug accurately. And I guess this has something to do with the user interface because all is linked to interface actions (application frame, opening/collapsing panels, showing the information panel)
Once again my system specs (when experiencing the issues half of my RAM was still free with Safari, Mail and InDesign CS6 and CC open for comparison):
InDesign CC (German)
Mac OS 10.8.4
MacBook Pro 17inch
8 GB RAM
2.66 GHz Intel Core i7
500 GB HD (200 GB free)

Safari MUCH slower than Explorer on same computer. Why?

I have Comcast cable internet and I've noticed that my Safari (1.3.2) has been getting increasingly slow, very slow over the past several weeks. So I've been using Explorer (5.2.3) which is blazing fast comparatively. Why is this and is there anything I can do to Safari to get the same performance I'm getting from IE?
Safari has all my bookmarks. I've done the import bookmarks thing into IE but it just creates a "Bookmarks.plist" which, as far as I can tell, does nothing. Also my email application automatically launches Safari for links in email and I can't figure out how to get it to launch IE instead.
So if I can get these latter two issues resolved I'm fine using IE. So I'll take advice on that as well.
iMac Mac OS X (10.3.9) Safari 1.3.2

Internet Explorer has not been supported by Microsoft for some time. It is not as secure as current browsers. Firefox, Camino, Mozilla, Opera would be viable free alternatives to Safari.
Safari
If you are experiencing slower than usual operation, there are some steps you can take to perhaps improve the speed:
General - System Maintenance is important. Have a look at this MacWorld article for guidance.
Safari - Safari menu>Empty Cache is a good start.
Unplug your cable box, wait 30 seconds, plug-in to reset your ISP's address.
Go to your Network>TCP panel. Select "configure IPv6". Set to "off". Select "apply".
Go to your User Library>Safari folder. Move the Icon folder to the trash. This folder holds the small image files appearing next to the web address in the address bar. This file can become corrupt slowing things down. When you move it to the trash, Safari creates a new folder on the restart. Over time, the icon file rebuilds itself based on sites you access.
You can also move the Safari preference file .com.apple.safari.plist to the trash. When you restart Safari you'll need to reset your custom preferences, so mark them down for reference before moving the file. This file is accessed by a number of applications including Mail. Each time the file is accessed it is susceptible to corruption. Trashing the old gives you a fresh version. The file can be found at User>Library>Preferences
Restart Safari after completing the above.
There are other steps, however, I think this is a good start. Post back with results.

LR4 import very slow...Can you direct import?

I miss the way LR3 imported images without searching for the source is there a way to speed up the process? Can you stop LR4 from searching for every image on your drives?

I got the same problem. The export of 17GB database took 4 hours, most of the time it just stays there with one process (the first worker). The regular export took 3 hours. The import took more thatn 18 hours in 10.2.0.2 DB. I set parallel for 5, but it dosen't help, since most of the time only one worker is running.
I read one paper Note:376969.1 form poor performance, the suggestion is to set the correct parameters:
spincount = 4000
session_cached_cursors = 800
cursor_space_for_time = true
db_cache_advice = OFF
But another Oracle paper mentions that there is no paralellism when the metedata worker is running. So if you have large number of object, but small data set, you don't get performance. It only helps when you have small number of objects, and large data set.
Don't know if any Oracle people can answer that. My experience is that it is much slower than the old export/import in any perspective.

Music plays back slow once exported to another program.

How do I get it to play at normal speed? It plays fine in GarageBand but once exported to Adobe After Effects or Premiere Pro it plays way slower than the speed I had it set at in GarageBand. Any suggestions?

Well I ended up exporting the song to iTunes, finding the .aif file on my computer, importing it into adobe audition, then exporting it as a .wav and my audio sounded just fine! ... In case anyone comes across this issue!

Slow Web Export in Aperture 1.5.1

I feel a little crazy for asking this, but it seems like web exports have gotten significantly slower since I upgraded to Aperture 1.5.1. I cannot find anything on my machine that would cause this. Has anyone else experienced this?
-Fletch
PowerMac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.8)

I haven't noticed it being slower in v1.5.1 than previously. That said it's too slow and slower than it should be. My Mac Pro can knock out files as fast as 18 high res. files per minute (~90mb each. from 1DsM2) when I'm batching but web galleries tend to hover around 3 files per minute (2-6 overall). That's much too slow and would be a nightmare on location if you have to generate a web gallery from your laptop of a few hundred files.
Aperture needs to have an option to generate the web galleries from the thumbnails it creates (which I think fit within 1000 px square - more than enough for most web galleries) or from previews rather than from the raw files. This would speed things up considerably.
I haven't been using previews, I turned them off, so you might be able to use them for that if your referenced files are off-line, but it would still be nice to have the option to generate web galleries from Aperture's built thumbnails or the previews from an Aperture library or from referenced files.

URLClassLoader slower than system loader

I'm subclassing URLClassLoader to load jar files on the local file system. I noticed that URLClassLoader loads about 30% slower than placing the jar files on the system class path. In my app, class loading performance in very important -even though it is just a one time hit.
I suspect the URLClassLoader (which I believe is implemented mostly in Java on Sun's VM) is not leveraging the many performance optimziations that the system loader enjoys (which is probably implemented in native code).
I also experience the same performance issue if I try to do jar loading myself using Java ZipFile i/o.
Comments?

well there is quite more overhead involved - loading from classpath of course is the most optimized one.

Importing oim 9.1 exported data to oim 11g?

Hello,
I just read a few recent threads on upgrading from 9.1 to 11g... It sounds like there isn't a path to 11g at the moment.
But has anyone tried exporting oim 9.1 data and using oim 11g Deployment Manager to import the 9.1 exported data in?
We've invested about 4 man years in our current oim 9.1 solution. Just can't affort to throw too many things away!
Appreciate any feedback.
Thanks and cheers,
Luke

For the time being, stick with what works. Right nows the approval process form 10g does not exist in 11g so it cannot be migrated. There are a few other changes such as event handlers and entity adapters and pre-populate adapters and i'm sure many more. Wait for 11g to mature a bit more and provide the path you need to upgrade. Your implementation will not end with the current state, just don't be in a hurry to move forward to the 11g version. And remember, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Unless you are in dire need of the functionality that 11g is going to give over 10g, then stay where you are at for the time being.
-Kevin

Home Hub 3 is slower than dial up.

I used to be on a voyager 220v router but started having connection problems. After speaking to customer support, and after they ran some tests on the line/router, they told me that the fault was with the 220v and as it was obsolete, i would need to change to a HH3.
After receiving the HH3, im now finding that the d/l speed for webpages is slower than it was on dial-up. Ive tried running speedtester but it fails to complete and just gives an error that it cant be completed at this time and to try later. After reading another thread on this issue, i went and found the settings from the hub itself, these are posted below:-
ADSL Settings
VPI/VCI:
0/38
Type:
PPPoA
Modulation:
G.992.5 Annex A
Latency type:
Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up):
4.6 dB / 10.5 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up):
28.7 dB / 15.4 dB
Output power (Down/Up):
20.4 dBm / 11.3 dBm
FEC Events (Down/Up):
57086058 / 0
CRC Events (Down/Up):
90472 / 32
Loss of Framing (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Signal (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Power (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
HEC Events (Down/Up):
1331805 / 8
Error Seconds (Local/Remote):
1736 / 0
is their anything amongst the above which explains why its running so slowly?

Bah, this is a PITA.
Got up around 7am and the HH3 was displaying connection time of 10 hours, great, lets leave it for 24 and see what happens. Tried browsing and pages were incredibly slow to load, thats when they did actually load. I said stuff it and took the dog for a walk and left everything as is. Got back and checked again at 9.15 to find a connection time of 14 mins, so obvioulsy something has reset itself.
Tried speedtester and quite simply, the page would not load in order for me to test it.
Tried clean line check, sounds perfect, no noise whatsoever on it.
Tried connecting to the test socket and now get the following results:-
FAQ
1. Best Effort Test: -provides background information.
Download Speed
0.56 Mbps
0 Mbps
21 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Download speedachieved during the test was - 0.56 Mbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 4 Mbps-21 Mbps.
IP Profile for your line is - 11.28 Mbps
2. Upstream Test: -provides background information.
Upload Speed
0.73 Mbps
0 Mbps
0.83 Mbps
Max Achievable Speed
Upload speed achieved during the test was - 0.73Mbps
Additional Information:
Upstream Rate IP profile on your line is - 0.83 Mbps
This test was not conclusive and further testing is required.This might be useful for your Broadband Service Provider to investigate the fault.
If you wish to carry out further tests,please click on 'Continue' button.If not, please close the window using 'Exit' button and contact your ISP for further assistance with these results.
ADSL Line Status
Connection Information
Line state:
Connected
Connection time:
0 days, 00:08:56
Downstream:
12.49 Mbps
Upstream:
888.9 Kbps
ADSL Settings
VPI/VCI:
0/38
Type:
PPPoA
Modulation:
G.992.5 Annex A
Latency type:
Interleaved
Noise margin (Down/Up):
4.5 dB / 10.6 dB
Line attenuation (Down/Up):
29.1 dB / 15.5 dB
Output power (Down/Up):
20.4 dBm / 12.0 dBm
FEC Events (Down/Up):
1790482 / 0
CRC Events (Down/Up):
4292 / 0
Loss of Framing (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Signal (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
Loss of Power (Local/Remote):
0 / 0
HEC Events (Down/Up):
22423 / 0
Error Seconds (Local/Remote):
10600 / 0

PS CS3 much slower than CS2 on Intel Mac. I don't get it.

Yes, very very strange.
I work with very large files, so I just got a spiffy new Mac Pro. It's my first Intel machine, so I expected that CS2 would drag a little bit, due to Rosetta. In fact, moving from one processor to eight of them seems to have much more than compensated. Nevertheless, I ordered CS4 and while I wait I downloaded the demo of CS3.
I expected that CS3 would fly (no Rosetta) but have found my test tasks taking an inordinate amount of time... much slower than CS2 on the same Xeon workstation, and slower than CS2 on my old iMac (single 2.1GHz G5)
Since I work with extremely large files, I got a hardware RAID5 made up of four 15,000RPM SAS drives. I can't get enough RAM to avoid using scratch disk, so I attacked the biggest performance bottleneck. I did get 8GB of RAM; would have gotten more, but I read that it won't matter until CS goes 64-bit in CS5 at the earliest.
The rest of it: dual quad-core 2.8GHz "Woodcrest" Xeon processors, NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT graphics card, OS X 10.5.5, all updates (Apple and Adobe) applied as of 6pm Wednesday October 8th.
I'm running two tests as my benchmark: open a file (PSD created with CS2, 75" x 75" at 400ppi, two layers, RGB with one additional channel) and resize to 75" x 75" at 800ppi. Once that is done, I rotate the new, massive file counterclockwise 18.5 degrees.
On my old setup, 2.1GHz SP G5 iMac with CS2, these tasks took 38m 30s and 1h 33m 22s respectively.
New machine with CS2: 10m 09s and 29m 14s respectively
New machine with CS3: 42m 38s and 1h 36m 24s
(above tests run repeatedly: these numbers are the fastest numbers for each configuration)
I have nothing else running for these tests, except for Activity Monitor. What I've observed with Activity Monitor: the old G5 was pegged at (or very near) 100% CPU the whole time. Mac Pro with CS2, Photoshop ran most of the time on one CPU at a time, but spiked up as high as 250% CPU usage just for Photoshop.
I haven't seen Photoshop CS3 use more than 80% of one processor the whole time on the Mac Pro. Mostly it sits around 35%.
One more informal test: if I open that same file and downsample from 400ppi to 200ppi, CS2 does it in 1m 40s. CS3: 6m 57s. I don't have the iMac any more so I can't tell you how long it would take there.
In both CS2 and CS3 the scratch disk is my startup volume, but it's a RAID. I can't add any more drives except for external drives. I could have configured it to one dedicated system drive and a second scratch volume made up of the remaining three drives, but I consulted with people who know RAID better than I do who agreed that since everything is going through the SCSI controller and everything gets written to multiple drives in order to make it faster that I'd get a performance hit by splitting the RAID into two volumes, even if multiple processes are trying to get at the same drive array. Even adding a Firewire 800 drive for scratch would be slower than using the RAID. Or so I've been told.
So, this seems absurd. CS3 is not using Rosetta, right? So it should be flying on my machine. What on earth could I have done to a fresh CS3 (demo) install to make it slower than CS2 on my old G5? Is the CS3 demo crippled? Is there a conflict having CS2 and the CS3 demo on the same machine?
I'm stumped.

>Ya see, this is the attitude you really, really should get over. The Photoshop CS3 (10.0.1) code is just fine... it's your system (hardware/software) which, for some reason is not providing an optimal environment.
Jeff, I agree completely. You seem to be assuming that I actually think Adobe wrote bad code. In fact, I believe Adobe did NOT write bad code (and I wrote that) but that the condition that you are suggesting (CS3 being slowed by having having scratch and system on the same volume to a far greater extent than CS2) could only be caused by bad code by Adobe. Since I believe that, as you say, a universal difference of this magnitude between CS2 and CS3 would be noticed by huge numbers of users, I doubt that what I am seeing is the result of having scratch and system on the same volume.
In case I'm being less than clear:
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS2.
Scratch and system were on the same volume for CS3.
On my system CS2 performs tasks three to four times faster than CS3.
ergo, either there is some problem other than scratch and system being on the same volume (perhaps something that exacerbates the scratch/system/same volume issue, OK, I accept that possibility) or else the change has been between CS2s and CS3s handling of scratch disks.
If for the sake of argument we rule out the possibility that CS3 handles the condition of scratch and system being on the same volume worse than CS2 does, the only possibility left is that there is SOMETHING ELSE WRONG WITH MY SYSTEM.
I am trying to find out what that other thing is. You're the one insisting that scratch and system being on the same volume is the cause of the CS3 slowdown. Accusing me of not believing that there's something wrong with my system misses the mark entirely. I ABSOLUTELY believe there is something wrong with my system.
> Your RAM tests sound pretty thorough, but if I had your large-files workflow I would buy two (or preferably 4) 4-GB sized matched RAM DIMMs, remove all the existing RAM, and install only the new RAM to further test whether or not the old RAM is anomalous.
Thanks Allen,
Actually, this is exactly what I've done, though in a different order. My system shipped with two 1GB chips. I bought two 4GB chips from OWC and installed them, and found my CS2 performance to increase significantly. It was only then that I tried installing the CS3 demo. When I found CS3 running my tests more slowly than expected, I pulled the new RAM out and tried with just the original 2GB and tested both CS2 and CS3 again. Then I took the original 2GB out, put only the new RAM in and tested CS2 and CS3 again, finding the same results. Currently I have all 10GB in the system and for the moment I'm setting aside the possibility of a problem with the RAM (or at least setting aside the possibility that the RAM chips are just plain bad) because that would indicate that both the new and the old RAM are both bad in the same way. That seems unlikely.
So I guess I'll have to drag the system down to the Genius Bar if I don't see an improvement from rearranging my hard drives.
The update there is that last night I backed up my system, and this morning I deleted my RAID5 set, blowing away everything on my system until I can restore from backup. The new configuration is 1 JBOD drive plus three drives attached as RAID0.
Unfortunately, neither of the new volumes is visible when I go to restore from backup. For the moment, this little experiment has cost me my entire system. The upshot is that it may be some more time before I have any more information to share. Even when I do get it working again, I can expect restoring to take the same 12 hours that backing up did.
I will certainly post here when I've got my system back.

Generally speaking import is slower than export. Right ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for