Distributing OS, Photoshop & ACR, Scratch, Caches, DNGs, and working TIFFs among SSDs?

manythanks

Reputable
Aug 30, 2014
3
0
4,510
For optimal performance in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop CS5 (I will soon upgrade to CS6 or CC), how should I distribute my OS, apps, Scratch, Caches, DNGs, and working TIFFs among these drives?:

120 GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G SSD
240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G SSD
960 GB OWC Mercury Accelsior SSD
(connected by Thunderbolt TB1 OWC Helios unit)
multiple individual hard drives connected via eSATA and USB3: not RAIDed together

The Accelsior SSD, connected by TB1, is by far the fastest drive. Would partitioning and devoting different parts of it to different functions help?

I'm able to fit the OS, apps, email, etc. on the 120 GB SSD. But I don't assume that I should.

Here's the most relevent info about the rest of my hardware:
Hardware Overview:

Model Name: iMac
Model Identifier: iMac12,2
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 3.4 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 32 GB
Boot ROM Version: IM121.0047.B1F
SMC Version (system): 1.72f2

Many thanks,

Mark
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator


You could also do that on the 120.
Or, possibly setup a RAMDisk. I use one for Lightroom scratch space. 4GB. Not necessary, and I'm not sure I've seen any performance increase. But it's worth a try.
 

manythanks

Reputable
Aug 30, 2014
3
0
4,510
I could probably figure out how to make a RAM disk out of some of my RAM. But my iMac is maxed out with 32GB of OWC RAM and it seems like it's best devoted to RAM, no? If I had much more RAM, then I might do well devote some of it to a RAM disk, but I don't have more on this machine.

I'm able to fit my OS and all apps and email and such on the 120GB SSD, so it seems I might as well use the 240GB SSD for something else. Do you think it's faster to just have scratch and caches on the 960GB Accelsior SSD (along with the work-in-progress DNGs and TIFFs) than to put scratch and caches on the 240GB SSD? If scratch and caches and DNGs and TIFFs were all on the same drive then they would of course be competing with one another for bandwidth, but perhaps the read incompressible rate of 640 MB/s and write incompressible rate of 400 MB/s of the Accelsior connected via Thunderbolt 1 is fast enough so that there's more bandwidth left over for scratch and caches there than there is on the 240GB SSD with its read incompressible rate of 270 MB/s and its write incompressible rate of 170 MB/s? Any advice on how I can know which way of distributing this stuff is faster? --Mark