Apple Photo's Library on SSD

[btrach144]

Would it be worth it to store the Photo's library on:

1. regular HDD
2. 3 TB Fusion Drive
3. 1 TB SSD

Would I notice any improvements stepping up to the fusion or SSD from a basic HDD? My photo library is about 625 GB currently.

I'd like to be able to render image previews and flow through my pictures in a breeze.

Thinking about updating to a new 2017 iMac if they come out.

 

[kenoh]

From HDD to SSD is like a new computer. I put a SSD in my HDD MacBook pro and it was like a new computer... Fantastic performance increase in terms of user experience.

 

[MCAsan]

What do you plan to do when Photos will not fit on any single drive? As I remember, Photo with its managed library can not span more than one volume. That is very different than a photo manager that uses a referenced library that can address multiple sets of folders on multiple drives at the same time. This is why many Aperture users migrated from managed to referenced libraries and why apps like Lightroom, Capture 1 Pro, and Photo RAW only do referenced libraries.

 

[btrach144]

What do you plan to do when Photos will not fit on any single drive? As I remember, Photo with its managed library can not span more than one volume. That is very different than a photo manager that uses a referenced library that can address multiple sets of folders on multiple drives at the same time. This is why many Aperture users migrated from managed to referenced libraries and why apps like Lightroom, Capture 1 Pro, and Photo RAW only do referenced libraries.

I currently have my macOS on an SSD and my library on an external HDD.

I guess I was hoping that someone could confirm if they saw any benefit to using an SSD.

I'd probably buy an external 1 TB SSD. It took me roughly 10 years to reach 500 GB so by the time I reach 1 TB, 2 TB SSDs will probably be cheaper. But I'd only want to go this route if someone can share their experience

 

[Weaselboy]

I guess I was hoping that someone could confirm if they saw any benefit to using an SSD.

I have an older Photos library I keep on an external (USB3) SSD and I previously had it on a external HDD. I can promise you there is a night and day difference. If you can afford the external SSD, you will not regret it.

 

[MCAsan]

Indeed do an SSD whenever the budget allows. And hook it up over the fastest transport you have....TB 3/2/1, USC 3.2/3.0/2. Try not to go down to USB 2 or FW....both are so slow. And if you have an external data drive, make sure your Time Machine (or CCC) backup disk is large enough to include it in the backups.

 

[btrach144]

Indeed do an SSD whenever the budget allows. And hook it up over the fastest transport you have....TB 3/2/1, USC 3.2/3.0/2. Try not to go down to USB 2 or FW....both are so slow. And if you have an external data drive, make sure your Time Machine (or CCC) backup disk is large enough to include it in the backups.

I have an older Photos library I keep on an external (USB3) SSD and I previously had it on a external HDD. I can promise you there is a night and day difference. If you can afford the external SSD, you will not regret it.

Thank you! I feel better about putting out the money now

 

[bingeciren]

I use a referenced Photos library in order to save space. I keep all my media on an external drive connected to my Mac Mini and share this drive. When I'm at home, I map this drive to my MacBook. When I'm traveling if I need to edit pictures, I take my external media drive with me, however, most of the time I leave it at home because I don't do any editing while I travel.

The biggest advantage of this method is that the Photos keeps reduced size thumbnails of all the pictures in the library, which is perfectly adequate for viewing and displaying purposes while saving an enormous amount of space on my MacBook's local drive.

As an example, I have 49,500 pictures. The actual size of the media on the external drive is 215 GB yet the referenced Photos Library is only 18 GB.

I recommend using a fast USB3 flash disk, or even better an external USB3 SSD drive for the media, something like the Oyen Digital Shadow Mini 500GB USB3 SSD. This drive is about $160 which is very fast and quite affordable IMHO.

 

[btrach144]

I use a referenced Photos library in order to save space. I keep all my media on an external drive connected to my Mac Mini and share this drive. When I'm at home, I map this drive to my MacBook. When I'm traveling if I need to edit pictures, I take my external media drive with me, however, most of the time I leave it at home because I don't do any editing while I travel.

The biggest advantage of this method is that the Photos keeps reduced size thumbnails of all the pictures in the library, which is perfectly adequate for viewing and displaying purposes while saving an enormous amount of space on my MacBook's local drive.

As an example, I have 49,500 pictures. The actual size of the media on the external drive is 215 GB yet the referenced Photos Library is only 18 GB.

I recommend using a fast USB3 flash disk, or even better an external USB3 SSD drive for the media, something like the Oyen Digital Shadow Mini 500GB USB3 SSD. This drive is about $160 which is very fast and quite affordable IMHO.

Problem is I moved away from my family a few years ago and started my own family. These pictures are largely family photos.

I love the idea of referenced libraries but I use iCloud photo sharing to share the family photos with our family. Photos is baked directly into their phones so it's super easy.

I tried using OneDrive for sharing of photos but nobody viewed them as it was a hassle.

Since iCloud photos doesn't play nicely with referenced libraries, I'll probably have to go with a large external SSD.

 

[bingeciren]

Problem is I moved away from my family a few years ago and started my own family. These pictures are largely family photos.

I love the idea of referenced libraries but I use iCloud photo sharing to share the family photos with our family. Photos is baked directly into their phones so it's super easy.

I tried using OneDrive for sharing of photos but nobody viewed them as it was a hassle.

Since iCloud photos doesn't play nicely with referenced libraries, I'll probably have to go with a large external SSD.

In that case, If your library is larger than 500GB, I recommend the 1TB version of the Oyen Digital Shadow Mini. It is tiny and fast but will set you back for $350.

 

[btrach144]

I'll likely hold out for the 2017 iMac but if I had to buy today, what's recommend for Apple's photo program?

I was thinking 27" iMac i7 with 16 GB and 390 GPU. Probably 512 GB internal SSD.

Is that overkill?

 

[bingeciren]

I'll likely hold out for the 2017 iMac but if I had to buy today, what's recommend for Apple's photo program?

I was thinking 27" iMac i7 with 16 GB and 390 GPU. Probably 512 GB internal SSD.

Is that overkill?

I don't think it's an overkill, but then again, I always go for the best performance that I can afford.

 

[ericwn]

I'll likely hold out for the 2017 iMac but if I had to buy today, what's recommend for Apple's photo program?

I was thinking 27" iMac i7 with 16 GB and 390 GPU. Probably 512 GB internal SSD.

Is that overkill?

Not sure what is considered overkill, but this is a great machine, for sure. I have the predecessor iMac, upgraded to 32 GB RAM, with a 750 GB SSD running 27/7 for almost four years and it still doesn't feel slow.

 

[davybe]

What do you plan to do when Photos will not fit on any single drive? As I remember, Photo with its managed library can not span more than one volume. That is very different than a photo manager that uses a referenced library that can address multiple sets of folders on multiple drives at the same time. This is why many Aperture users migrated from managed to referenced libraries and why apps like Lightroom, Capture 1 Pro, and Photo RAW only do referenced libraries.

Photos supports managed and referenced images. By changing the preference 'copy to Photos while importing' (forgot the precise name) you make your next imports managed or referenced. There is even a small icon on reference pictures. Of course, this is clunky to use as you need to go change the option each time if you go hybrid, AND referenced images do NOT sync to your iCloud photos library. Just to add some information here.

 

[MCAsan]

Things to consider about using Photos with a managed library that has to fit on one volume.

https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-10612
http://www.macworld.com/article/1143828/photography/referenced-library.html
https://photofocus.com/2015/04/10/why-apples-new-photos-app-is-not-for-me/

 

[btrach144]

What things matter when considering a computer that will be primarily used for Photos? (I might switch in the future to another program??? Unknown though as I tried Lightroom and didn't like it)

I like the idea of the 27" iMac due to it's screen. My current MBP felt slow and I feel like that's because my photo library was on a platter HDD and the processor was a 6 year old mobile processor?

I can get the base 27" iMac or I can bump up the processor and GPU for 600-700 more. Not sure if Photos would take advantage of it. On one hand what's $700? On the other hand, that's 7 months worth of diapers.

Edit: the more I think about spending 2.7k on a computer that only has one purpose, the more crazy the idea seems. I'm thinking 27" i5 with 380 GPU, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB internal SSD and an external 1 TB SSD (Likely Thunderbolt and something that can hit 500 MB/s read/write). Thoughts, concerns?

I'd also likely get a 3TB or larger drive for Time Machine.

 

[F00l_0n_the_h1ll2]

I would never ever spend 3.7K on a new computer, that would just display my fotos. You could buy a used MacPro for 500$, an Apple cinema display 30'' for a similar amount and then put a fusion drive into your new configuration. For about 1.2K that could be your heaven...

 

[davybe]

Things to consider about using Photos with a managed library that has to fit on one volume.

https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-10612
http://www.macworld.com/article/1143828/photography/referenced-library.html
https://photofocus.com/2015/04/10/why-apples-new-photos-app-is-not-for-me/

Pictures added to any Photos library do not need reside on the same volume as your booot, library, or each other. This is simply false. Also dude, an article about iPhotos from 2009, really??

Yes Photos is simplistic and although it fully supports referenced images, it is clucky to use and such pictures won't sync (your first article is really on point, thank you). But let's keep to facts so people can choose cards up.

 

[btrach144]

Pictures added to any Photos library do not need reside on the same volume as your booot, library, or each other. This is simply false. Also dude, an article about iPhotos from 2009, really??

Yes Photos is simplistic and although it fully supports referenced images, it is clucky to use and such pictures won't sync (your first article is really on point, thank you). But let's keep to facts so people can choose cards up.

I think I've decided upon Sandisk 900 series. 1 TB external SSD with 850 MB/s when used with USB Gen-2. I'll use it solely for my photo library. Best part is it's only $460!

Now Apple just needs to release iMacs with USB 3.1 gen-2.

https://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Extr...F8&qid=1486161393&sr=8-1&keywords=sandisk+900