Question on NTFS and Cluster SIze

Summersond wrote on 7/23/2002, 12:41 PM

Anybody know what the optimum cluster size should be set to on the capture drive? NTFS defaults to 4k clusters, but I would think that because of the large size of capture files, a bigger size like 8 or 16k might be better.

thanks
dave

Comments

HeeHee wrote on 7/23/2002, 2:57 PM

The basics on clusters is that every file takes up atleast one. If you have an 8-bit file it will take up a 4K cluster. If you have a 5k file it will take up two 4k clusters. The amount of clusters on the drive is determined by the size of the drive and the cluster size. If you 4k clusters you will have 4 times more clusters than if you had 16k clusters. So, if you have predominantly large files on your drive, than the bigger the cluster the better performance you are going to get. If you have many smaller files, then you want smaller clsuters in order to preserve space. It is a decision on performance vs. efficiency. You have to make the call.

aduma wrote on 7/23/2002, 3:09 PM

It is true that there is better performance with cluster sizes >4 KB, but you cannot defrag the volume with the included Windows 2000/XP defrag tool when the cluster size is >4 KB.

Summersond wrote on 7/23/2002, 4:22 PM

Can I defrag if I use, say, Norton Systemworks? If not, I don't think I will mess with it. I know that if I have small files, it is a waste, but on a drive with predominantly larger video files, if it would run smoother and more effeciently.

thanks!
dave

aduma wrote on 7/24/2002, 8:44 AM

Copied from http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/prodtechnol/winntas/tips/winntmag/optntfs.asp

...using cluster sizes greater than 4KB has several potentially negative side effects. For example, when you use cluster sizes larger than 4KB, disk-defragmentation utilities can't defragment the volume, you can't use NTFS file compression on the volume, and the amount of wasted disk space increases because user data files stored on the volume don't end evenly on cluster boundaries...

Summersond wrote on 7/24/2002, 12:08 PM

Aduma, thanks for the info!

inspector wrote on 7/24/2002, 1:39 PM

What happened to your original post? I had replied to it and the replies and your original message appears to be gone. Am I loosing my mind? Actually that may be a secondary issue.

Steve

Chienworks wrote on 7/24/2002, 2:10 PM

Inspector, there are two different but very similar threads running on this topic right now. You might have replied in the other one.

inspector wrote on 7/25/2002, 9:03 AM

I sorry, I'll blame it on having the left hemisphere of my brain removed to contol my nearly constant seizure activity...

steve