I’m about to switch from HDDs to a 4TB NVME, which will only be used for storing photos, is there any performance benefit to having a higher unit allocation size in my use-case?
Details: raw files are 30-50mb each, currently there are ~60k files.
*Ligthtroom catalogue & preview files etc are all stored elsewhere. * 4TB NVME will only be for photos, no OS etc. existing HDDs for photo storage will be relegated to backup duty
I’ve started digging but it’s quite the rabbithole for a one-off task, and particularly unclear when accounting for SSD behaviour (erase block size, wear leveling etc). There’s a plethora of inferior forum sites that say stick with default 4k and occasionally mention notable exceptions to the rule where all data is of a similar size but dont clearly elaborate, especially if its on SSD.
I think the issue here is Lightroom. It’s a piece of software that is used to milk money from users but with little investment - certainly not in the area of performance.
I had a similar setup in volume but the - unrelated to your question - licensing change by Adobe convinced me to retool. Processing performance using darktable is significantly faster.
Yes, you will see a performance improvement using a NVMe SSD compared to a (single?) HDD. There should be a speed-up of 1-2 orders of magnitude.
Any sort of “performance benefit to having a higher unit allocation size” should be minor and insignificant in comparison to the performance difference of the underlying storage technologies.
I pay the adobe tax because the workflows quick and i hate editing. Ive been looking at Darkroom, and its on my radar to migrate, need to check raw file compatability first.
Was worth checking for any level of improvements before i move everything.
*edit - ran some benchmarks and nothing remotely notable
that say stick with default 4k and occasionally mention notable exceptions to the rule where all data is of a similar size but dont clearly elaborate, especially if its on SSD.