Aperture running at a crawl since lion upgrade

John,

One more thing: when you say "lack of useful multi-monitor support" I assume you are referring to the new Lion full screen mode and/or to using more than 2 monitors. I have had a two monitor setup for Aperture for a long time now, and everything works for me under Lion as it did under SL. I use one monitor set as "Alternate" in Aperture full screen mode (as opposed to the "Lion full screen) and the other one has the library browser, inspectors, etc.

When I try to use the Lion full screen mode with Aperture, it reverts to a single monitor setup and blanks the second one, which renders it, as you said, unusable from an A3 workflow perspective.

sorin

I found that Aperture in 8GBs under Snow Leopard on my MBP was very sluggish, and the main reason was RAM, secondary reason was processor. When I bought the MBP, it had 2GBs which was pretty much a joke back in 2009. Back then, this MBP had an offical limit of 4GBs, an actual limit of 6. Then Apple did some firmware changes and OWC discovered that the limit is now 8! When in doubt, I always buy more RAM! I think I may be moving from 12GBs to 16 shortly, it seems I am on the edge of needing it

On the multi-monitor support (and this I know is off-topic), I don't use Alternate, Span or Mirror, since all of them simply place the same image on BOTH external monitors. Rather pointless. I use the "Off" option, place HUDs on the 2nd and 3rd monitors, and use them also for things like the APTS training, the Aperture User Guide, Mail and Safari. I guess I'm a bit of a multitasker. Lion just makes both 2nd and 3rd monitors turn into fake grey linen. Again, pointless.

Well here is an update on the aperture issue eating into my memory. I added 12 gigs more memory and now I have 16 gig. Lion just running consumes almost 3 gig. Bounces back and forth between 2.5 and 3. So I'm sitting here with 13 gig free. I start aperture and it starts consuming 2.5 gig then as I skim thru photos my memory just gets less and less even when I stop doing anything it just consumes my memory until I'm down to less than 1 gig. Its like a memory leak that once starts just consumes itself. You only have to start the downward slide then stop what your doing but the memory just keeps going down to almost nothing. Just so if someone wants to know what I'm using its a Mac Pro G5 dual quad, 3.0 ghz with 16 gig of ram running lion and the 3.1.3 version of aperture, you know the one made for lion. This issue from what I'm reading is affecting people with all kinds of macs and all types of configurations. Apple has got to know there is an issue here. My question is why does it take so long for some sort of fix. I mean Lion has been out for what two weeks or more and its been an issue since inseption. I check everyday praying for an update but every day its a let down. I'm not going to say I'm changing to some other software, **** I'm one of the idiots who paid 500 for version 1 but I am getting frustrated with the issue. Just for the record aperture does run just a little bit better with all the ram but not much. Also I even went back to the 32 bit version but doesn't seem to make a big difference. Going to 32 bit is trading down anyway so that is not a fix, least not for me.

I'm pretty sure you have a Intel Mac Pro since the G5 is not a supported structure due to the Power PC no longer being supported by way of Rosetta. That and they never made a Dual Quad core G5 that I can remember nor in a 3GHz model. The Power PC topped out at 2.7 GHz. I'm just clarifying here.

Corrected to reflect 2.7 GHz as the max processor speed.

You are correct. Sorry I did have a power PC old habits die hard. Yes intel mac pro 2 x 3 ghz quad core intel xeon.

I assume you did not switch to 32 bit mode, but instead chose to throw more memory at it, correct?

No I switched to 32 bit and it is still very little difference when running aperture. Switching to 32 bit is not a fix, but a regression back in time or as I call it trading down. There is something fundamentally wrong with the combination of lion and aperture. I don't understand why this wasn't picked up in initial testing before release. Must be something either hard to figure out or hard to fix to not have a update for it yet. There have been many people screaming about it for two weeks or more.

I fully agree it is a bug and switching to 32 bit is only a workaround, but I disagree that 64 bit mode in itself is a goal. All it offers is the capability to address more than 4 GB of physical memory. It will not speed up processing UNLESS you need more that 4 GB of memory to process stuff.

I can think of a few coding errors that could trigger this king of behavior change from SL to Lion.

If switching back to 32 bit, along with excluding the folders from Spotlight and Time Machine did not alleviate the problem you either:

- are indeed using Aperture in a way that requires a working set larger than 4 GB, or

- are the lucky one that gets to see the manifestation of the bug in both modes

I am also wondering why the Lion kernel would use up to 3 GB. This is not normal, so maybe there is something else going on in your system. Lion DOES have more efficient and safe memory management, so it seems odd to see kernel usage going up this much. I rarely break the 700 MB level, which is what I would expect from this type of kernel.

That's simply, with 32bits app can't map more than 4GB, that's all.

It's like if I have a sport cart but I can't drive only at 20 miles/h 🙂

Hi,

Yes, dual monitor it's another problem with aperture, but not only this, if you fix Aperture in one desktop and then get it to full screen your toolbar continues fixed in desktop you select but fullscreen Aperture switchs to new desktop 😟

hiroru wrote:

That's simply, with 32bits app can't map more than 4GB, that's all.

It's like if I have a sport cart but I can't drive only at 20 miles/h 🙂

How do you know you need to address more than 4GBs?

And how do you know that the difference will be like the difference between "driving a sports cart" and driving at 20 miles/h?

I have Aperture running under Snow Leopard on a 12 GB Mac and just sometimes I see Aperture exceed 4GBs RAM consumption. Never have I seen it over 4.5GBs and then only when fast flipping through 18 megapixel RAW images. When I have run Aperture in 32 bit mode, I have seen absolutely no performance difference.

I think you have an assumed problem, and not a real one.

I does not have any problem if Aperture runs fine, but isn't it.

hiroru wrote:

I does not have any problem if Aperture runs fine, but isn't it.

No, what I'm saying is that you are assuming there is a disadvantage to you in running Aperture in 32 bit mode vs 64 bit mode. But you have not demonstrated that that there is a disadvantage. It worries you that the addressing is limited to 4GBs, but have no argument to support that contention.

If you are still getting poor performance on your 8GB Mac with Aperture in 32 bit mode, then maybe there is some other issue going on that needs some investigation. Is it still getting Page Outs? Is it CPU bound? Are any of the HDDs you use fuller than 80%? Are there other apps being used at the same time which are competing for resources

I doesn't have any problem to run Aperture in 32bit mode, but it's one step back in tecnological evolution.

I think that 64bit must have faster processing than 32bit.

hiroru wrote:

I doesn't have any problem to run Aperture in 32bit mode, but it's one step back in tecnological evolution.

I think that 64bit must have faster processing than 32bit.

So if you think that 32 bit addressing is "one step back", why are you using an 8GB Mac? Why such a backward RAM size?

I'm just teasing, of course! But you should realize that 64 bit apps are designed for running on large RAM Macs, and an 8GB Mac is not in that league.

Right now, in the Apple Store, you can order Macs with up to 64GBs. That's why, as an option, you have 64 bit apps. The benefit may start to kick in at 12GBs, and certainly, I'd say that if the app needs the space, then it would benefit at 16GBs and above.

Meanwhile, be happy that there is a growth path for your future, both in terms of going beyond 8GBs of physical RAM in Macs, and in the software's ability to address and utilize that RAM.

I'm glad you finally don't "have any problem to run Aperture in 32bit mode". That is sensible. But for your Mac, it is not a step backward.