Just found out that it's my LR catalog taken up 20% of my ssd space in c:. Move it to d: which is 2TB wd black series and also, cache by a 128GB ssd. So, speed wise still there and my c: can breath again. For those using ssd, just take note of the LR catalog, can be your nightmare!
LR catalog
- Thread starter BBTM
- Start date
The catalog itself. I moved and then when launch LR, I direct the path to new one.
Why would one put the LR data on the OS partition? It is one of the most basic concepts in IT to separate system files and user data.
It's not about the space. It will take up the same absolute amount anywhere else.Idk it would take up that amount of space. Lesson learnt.
What is wrong is the selection of the drive C. It is a good practice in IT to separate OS and data by using at least two different partitions (drives) for that. If OS sits in C (which is the default) then either have a second hard disk (better) or create a separate partition on the same hard disk (the cheapest option) where your own data sit. This will get the next letter (e.g. D). Makes live much easier in terms of back & restore and if you fill D up to the last byte then your OS is not stalled.
Most people only got a c: for all stuffs, not like us, with other drives too. My photos are stored in two drives as one is backup. I got 2 internal n 1 external, all 2TB. Recently got 2x 2TB external for my trip as one used for backup too.
I just never expect catalog taking up so much space and luckily I found out. Else it wouldn't be in the c: by default. Now know that the catalog is the culprit, just post to warn those having ssd n low in disk space due to LR catalog in c:
I just never expect catalog taking up so much space and luckily I found out. Else it wouldn't be in the c: by default. Now know that the catalog is the culprit, just post to warn those having ssd n low in disk space due to LR catalog in c:
Similar threads
