- Lightroom cannot move files from my camera's SD card
Lightroom will copy files from the SD card, but not remove them. Only files from a hard drive can be moved. The result is one cannot just put the SD card back into the camera and continue shooting.
If one removes files from the Lightroom catalog after copy from the SD card, the next time Lightroom imports from the SD card, those files will be copied again !
Adobe recommends formatting the SD card after importing before putting it back into the camera. But this is not practical if the SD card contains other files, such as video files, that I don't want to import in Lightroom. Lightroom should have the option to move files from any volume, including SD cards.
Because of this, I am forced to first manually move files from my SD card to a directory on my hard drive, then importing in Lightroom from that location. That is a 2-step process instead of one. Computers were built to automate tasks, not make them more complex. - Lightroom import presets cannot remember whether to include or exclude video files
One can use the Alt key in the Import dialog to check or uncheck video files during an import, but this setting cannot be saved into a preset. One has to press Alt again at every single import. I only want to manage photos in Lightroom, and not videos, and this is very annoying to be forced to do every time. - Lightroom import presets cannot remember the source directory location.
If I want to have separate presets for my SD card and OneDrive directory, it's not possible. I have to re-select the source directory manually every time during each import. I would like to save the location into the preset, but it can't be done. - Lightroom auto-import cannot move files into a tree structure
I cannot use auto-import to move files into a tree structure by date, which is something that I can do in the manual import feature. All files that are auto-imported must be moved into a single folder. Why does the auto-import feature have to be at all different from the manual import ? Beats me.
Because of this limitation, I cannot use auto-import at all. - Lightroom auto-import can only watch a single source directory.
If I want to, say, automatically files from both my Google Drive and OneDrive, it's not possible. I have to choose or the other. - Lightroom auto-import only works from folders that are initially empty.
Normally, I manually import my pictures into D:\Documents\Pictures\YYYY\MM . I would like Lightroom to have the option to automatically monitor any files that have been externally added or removed from those locations. One great example is files manually created by Photoshop when using Super Resolution. As it currently stands, the only way to import those files is to manually run "Synchronize folder", if one knows the actual folder that Photoshop created the image in !
Sunday, April 18, 2021
Top 6 pet peeves about Lightroom Classic import
Sunday, June 21, 2020
Realtek RTL 8156 USB 2.5 Gbps Ethernet 2.5GBASE-T vs Trendnet TEG-7080ES NBASE-T switch
I purchased a Trendnet 7080-ES switch in 2019 . It has served me well with multiple PCs using PCIe Aquantia AQN-107 NICs at 10 Gbps speed.
Today, I received a USB 3.0 NIC from Cable Creation . This is a 2.5 Gbps NIC using the Realtek 8156 chipset. I installed it on a Windows 10 system. Windows 10 automatically recognized the NIC. However, once I started running into performance issues, I updated the NIC drivers to 10.38.20.117 from the Realtek website, dated 1/17/2020 .
This is the result of an iperf test between two systems. They are directly connected by a 10ft CAT6 cable. IP addresses are manually configured on each system. The client is using the Realtek NIC on Windows 10. The server is using the Aquantia AQN-107 NIC on Ubuntu 18.04. Both sides are configured with 9KB jumbo frames.
This is about as good a result as can be expected - 99% of the 2.5 Gbps link speed. The difference is mostly TCP and IP overhead. I then connected the machines to the 10 Gbps ports of a Netgear unmanaged GS110MX switch, using CAT6 cables. This was the result :
Finally, using the same CAT6 cables, I moved both systems to the Trendnet TEG-7080ES switch. This is the result of the performance test :
As you can see, the card can't even deliver 1 Gbps in this case. We are very far from the link speed - only about 23% !
The Trendnet TEG-7080ES admin console shows the following :
The client with the Realtek 2.5 Gbps NIC is on port 4 . The server with the Aquantia AQN-107 is on port 5. I have tried setting the flow control setting on both. It doesn't fix the issue. Disabling jumbo frames on both sides and on the switch improves the performance to slightly over 1 Gbps, but still nowhere close to 2.5 Gbps. And it shouldn't be necessary to disable jumbo frames, since they work fine when the 2 systems are directly connected, or connected to the Netgear GS110MX switch. The Trendnet switch is running the latest firmware 1.01.04 dated 04/2018.
There is clearly some sort of incompatibility here between the Realtek 2.5GBASE-T and the Trendnet switch. I'm inclined to think this is a Trendnet issue, as the Realtek 2.5 Gbps NIC works fine against the Aquantia 10 Gbps NIC when directly connected, as well as against the unmanaged Netgear GS110MX switch, though it is still possible there is something wrong on the Realtek side too. I don't have any other multi-gig Ethernet controllers to test with besides this Realtek 2.5 Gbps and four Aquantia AQN-107 PCIe 10 Gbps.
Today, I received a USB 3.0 NIC from Cable Creation . This is a 2.5 Gbps NIC using the Realtek 8156 chipset. I installed it on a Windows 10 system. Windows 10 automatically recognized the NIC. However, once I started running into performance issues, I updated the NIC drivers to 10.38.20.117 from the Realtek website, dated 1/17/2020 .
This is the result of an iperf test between two systems. They are directly connected by a 10ft CAT6 cable. IP addresses are manually configured on each system. The client is using the Realtek NIC on Windows 10. The server is using the Aquantia AQN-107 NIC on Ubuntu 18.04. Both sides are configured with 9KB jumbo frames.
D:\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3 -c 192.168.1.237 -t 10 -O 10 -i 5 -R Connecting to host 192.168.1.237, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.237 is sending [ 4] local 192.168.1.236 port 61654 connected to 192.168.1.237 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 1.43 GBytes 2.45 Gbits/sec (omitted) [ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 1.43 GBytes 2.45 Gbits/sec (omitted) [ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 1.44 GBytes 2.47 Gbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 1.43 GBytes 2.45 Gbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 2.87 GBytes 2.47 Gbits/sec 0 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 2.86 GBytes 2.46 Gbits/sec receiver iperf Done.
This is about as good a result as can be expected - 99% of the 2.5 Gbps link speed. The difference is mostly TCP and IP overhead. I then connected the machines to the 10 Gbps ports of a Netgear unmanaged GS110MX switch, using CAT6 cables. This was the result :
D:\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3 -c 192.168.1.237 -t 10 -O 10 -i 5 -R Connecting to host 192.168.1.237, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.237 is sending [ 4] local 192.168.1.236 port 63175 connected to 192.168.1.237 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 1.28 GBytes 2.19 Gbits/sec (omitted) [ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 1.29 GBytes 2.22 Gbits/sec (omitted) [ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 1.29 GBytes 2.22 Gbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 1.30 GBytes 2.23 Gbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 2.59 GBytes 2.22 Gbits/sec 0 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 2.59 GBytes 2.22 Gbits/sec receiver iperf Done.While this is slower than a direct connection, the speed is still much higher than 2 Gbps, and about 88% of the 2.5 Gbps link speed.
Finally, using the same CAT6 cables, I moved both systems to the Trendnet TEG-7080ES switch. This is the result of the performance test :
D:\Downloads\iperf-3.1.3-win64>iperf3 -c 192.168.1.237 -t 10 -O 10 -i 5 -R Connecting to host 192.168.1.237, port 5201 Reverse mode, remote host 192.168.1.237 is sending [ 4] local 192.168.1.236 port 61997 connected to 192.168.1.237 port 5201 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 325 MBytes 545 Mbits/sec (omitted) [ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 312 MBytes 524 Mbits/sec (omitted) [ 4] 0.00-5.00 sec 325 MBytes 546 Mbits/sec [ 4] 5.00-10.00 sec 364 MBytes 610 Mbits/sec - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 689 MBytes 579 Mbits/sec 10231 sender [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 689 MBytes 578 Mbits/sec receiver iperf Done.
As you can see, the card can't even deliver 1 Gbps in this case. We are very far from the link speed - only about 23% !
The Trendnet TEG-7080ES admin console shows the following :
The client with the Realtek 2.5 Gbps NIC is on port 4 . The server with the Aquantia AQN-107 is on port 5. I have tried setting the flow control setting on both. It doesn't fix the issue. Disabling jumbo frames on both sides and on the switch improves the performance to slightly over 1 Gbps, but still nowhere close to 2.5 Gbps. And it shouldn't be necessary to disable jumbo frames, since they work fine when the 2 systems are directly connected, or connected to the Netgear GS110MX switch. The Trendnet switch is running the latest firmware 1.01.04 dated 04/2018.
There is clearly some sort of incompatibility here between the Realtek 2.5GBASE-T and the Trendnet switch. I'm inclined to think this is a Trendnet issue, as the Realtek 2.5 Gbps NIC works fine against the Aquantia 10 Gbps NIC when directly connected, as well as against the unmanaged Netgear GS110MX switch, though it is still possible there is something wrong on the Realtek side too. I don't have any other multi-gig Ethernet controllers to test with besides this Realtek 2.5 Gbps and four Aquantia AQN-107 PCIe 10 Gbps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)