cluster sizes using ntfs and softraid any opinions?

PipelineAudio wrote on 11/19/2001, 1:38 PM
ok some test results
Im using 3 disks in winxp using the windows softraid striping thing and testing with dskbench.exe
the format MUST be NTFS to use softraid and I am trying to determine the correct cluster size

***********************************************
test 1: default cluster size( whatever that is)
write: 37.05 mb/s
read: 42.61 mb/s
Block size 128kb: 81.94 audio tracks
64kb: 111.47
32kb: 107.93

************************************************

Test 2: 32k clusters
write: 37.08 mb/s
read: 42.82 mb/s
128kb: 81.69 tracks
64kb: 106.96
32kb: 108.56

*************************************************

Test 3: 64k clusters
write: 32.27 mb/s
read: 42.54 mb/s
128kb: 142.49 tracks (!!!!!! wtf??? )
64kb: 100.24
32kb: 102.53

*************************************************

Ok Im using vegas as my main audio app and dont know how or if I can specify block sizes in this app...so which of these three would be best for me ?

Comments

Cheesehole wrote on 11/20/2001, 1:08 AM
nice to see someone doing these tests... thanks.

you can always get the cluster size of your disk by running 'chkdsk' on your drive. after it runs, look for the 'bytes in each allocation unit'. that way you can see what the 'default' cluster size is.

can you clarify what the 'audio tracks' number means and where it came from?

- ben (cheesehole)
PipelineAudio wrote on 11/20/2001, 1:57 AM
Ahh sorry...
the test was done using dskbench.exe from pro-rec.com. The thing is, the guy made it for testing cakewalk setups. In cakewalk I guess you can choose different " block " sizes.

here is the article and a link to dskbench
http://prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/9DC930FCE2658C6F862565ED0078AEF1
PipelineAudio wrote on 11/20/2001, 5:11 PM
Peter H. any clues on this?
YOU would be the guy to ask.
Is this " block size " thing a cakewalk thing only?
Have you tried this softraid stuff? Seems to cause no more or no less crashes than the way I split the HD's before, but rendering seems faster, as does peak building and everything seems " smoother" am I hallucinating?
Is the increase( supposed) in CPU use this way actually any REAL difference than using one disk?
vanblah wrote on 11/20/2001, 9:08 PM
Block size is usually decided at the disk level, not the application level (unless Cakewalk is different). With multimedia I have always chosen a larger block size, because multimedia files are typically larger; that way the r/w heads don't do so much work transferring data to and from the disk. If you have a smaller block size, the file will get chopped up and possibly fragmented easier.

I have a machine set up with W2K striping acroos two 18GB 15K RPM SCSI disks. I haven't noticed much of a difference. I am going to set up a Promise FastTrack 100 ATA RAID card soon. I will post the results.