By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what is
the best cluster size for my situation :-

I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.

What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie clips?

-------

I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb partitions
becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there are overheads in
the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS partition gets to 160 GB.

I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper and
Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain size. Is
this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can have if I want to
defrag an NTFS partition?

For disk info in xp,try reading #814954 At microsoft.

"Alex Coleman" wrote:

> By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what is
> the best cluster size for my situation :-
>
> I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
> downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.
>
> What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
> partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie clips?
>
> -------
>
> I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb partitions
> becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there are overheads in
> the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS partition gets to 160 GB.
>
> I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper and
> Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain size. Is
> this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can have if I want to
> defrag an NTFS partition?
>

Can't find your reference 814954 at Microsoft. Is the number
miskeyed?

I have read this at Microsoft but it is mainly theory:
"NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP"
<http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-
preinstall.mspx> or http://snipurl.com/gwso

Alex



On Fri 12 Aug 2005 23:32:01, =?Utf-8?B?QW5kcmV3IEUu?= wrote:
<news:1CE0208A-AB2F-4C93-AD9D-(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> For disk info in xp,try reading #814954 At microsoft.



> "Alex Coleman" wrote:
>>
>> By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what
>> is the best cluster size for my situation :-
>>
>> I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
>> downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.
>>
>> What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
>> partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie
>> clips?
>>
>> -------
>>
>> I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb
>> partitions becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there
>> are overheads in the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS
>> partition gets to 160 GB.
>>
>> I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper
>> and Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain
>> size. Is this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can
>> have if I want to defrag an NTFS partition?
>>

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...c_fil_lxty.asp



--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In news:96B13CD0592D31E75@67.98.68.12,
Alex Coleman <(E-Mail Removed)> hunted and pecked:
> Can't find your reference 814954 at Microsoft. Is the number
> miskeyed?
>
> I have read this at Microsoft but it is mainly theory:
> "NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP"
> <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-
> preinstall.mspx> or http://snipurl.com/gwso
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Fri 12 Aug 2005 23:32:01, =?Utf-8?B?QW5kcmV3IEUu?= wrote:
> <news:1CE0208A-AB2F-4C93-AD9D-(E-Mail Removed)>
>>
>> For disk info in xp,try reading #814954 At microsoft.
>
>
>
>> "Alex Coleman" wrote:
>>>
>>> By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what
>>> is the best cluster size for my situation :-
>>>
>>> I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
>>> downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.
>>>
>>> What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
>>> partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie
>>> clips?
>>>
>>> -------
>>>
>>> I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb
>>> partitions becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there
>>> are overheads in the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS
>>> partition gets to 160 GB.
>>>
>>> I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper
>>> and Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain
>>> size. Is this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can
>>> have if I want to defrag an NTFS partition?

4K is optimal....

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alex Coleman" wrote:

| By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what is
| the best cluster size for my situation :-
|
| I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
| downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.
|
| What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
| partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie clips?
|
| -------
|
| I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb partitions
| becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there are overheads in
| the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS partition gets to 160 GB.
|
| I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper and
| Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain size. Is
| this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can have if I want to
| defrag an NTFS partition?

Just curious. Why?


--


Regards.

Gerry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> 4K is optimal....
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alex Coleman" wrote:
>
> | By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what is
> | the best cluster size for my situation :-
> |
> | I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
> | downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.
> |
> | What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
> | partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie clips?
> |
> | -------
> |
> | I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb partitions
> | becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there are overheads in
> | the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS partition gets to 160 GB.
> |
> | I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper and
> | Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain size.
> Is
> | this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can have if I want to
> | defrag an NTFS partition?

Because 4k is the data size used when the system is "paging". It just seems
to make the operating system a bit more "snappy" [in my estimation]. I would
guess that it may eliminate extra overhead involved when using
larger/smaller cluster sizes, and the system is making use of the pagefile.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"Gerry Cornell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%2301zRW$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just curious. Why?
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards.
>
> Gerry
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> FCA
>
> Stourport, Worcs, England
> Enquire, plan and execute.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 4K is optimal....
>>
>> --
>> Carey Frisch
>> Microsoft MVP
>> Windows XP - Shell/User
>> Microsoft Newsgroups
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "Alex Coleman" wrote:
>>
>> | By default WinXP formats NTFS to have 4k cluster sizes but what is
>> | the best cluster size for my situation :-
>> |
>> | I have a 60 GB NTFS partition which I use mainly for storing
>> | downloads (software and audio). It will be used by WinXP.
>> |
>> | What would the best NTFS cluster size be if this was a 160 GB
>> | partition filled mainly with 200K jpegs and some 10 MB movie clips?
>> |
>> | -------
>> |
>> | I suspect that 4K might be the best for my 60G and 160 Gb partitions
>> | becuase it saves space. But I don't know if there are overheads in
>> | the MFT and other metadata when the NTFS partition gets to 160 GB.
>> |
>> | I also read that third-party defrag utilities (like Diskeeper and
>> | Perfectdisk) will not work on NTFS clusters above a certain size. Is
>> | this true? What is the biggest cluster size I can have if I want to
>> | defrag an NTFS partition?
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Because 4k is the data size used when the system is "paging". It just seems
> to make the operating system a bit more "snappy" [in my estimation]. I would
> guess that it may eliminate extra overhead involved when using
> larger/smaller cluster sizes, and the system is making use of the pagefile.

I have a drive that is used to store small images, under 30k many times,
I have worked with the drive set at 512b and at the default 4k and even
larger - the 512b provides the best in unwasted slack space - and you
can really see this with 50,000+ files.

For database servers I move their data drive/array to larger cluster
sizes, 4k being way to small in my opinion.

Paging means little of you are not paging a lot.

What you have to do, to find the optimal size, is determine the size of
70% of your files and then determine the amount of wasted slack space
they consume and setup the cluster size for that. Sure, tracking small
cluster sizes is a performance hit, but wasted disk space is often more
of a problem for users.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

Also remember that if you go larger than 4k size clusters, the built in
defrag utility does not function on that drive/partition.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

"Leythos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Because 4k is the data size used when the system is "paging". It just
>> seems
>> to make the operating system a bit more "snappy" [in my estimation]. I
>> would
>> guess that it may eliminate extra overhead involved when using
>> larger/smaller cluster sizes, and the system is making use of the
>> pagefile.
>
> I have a drive that is used to store small images, under 30k many times,
> I have worked with the drive set at 512b and at the default 4k and even
> larger - the 512b provides the best in unwasted slack space - and you
> can really see this with 50,000+ files.
>
> For database servers I move their data drive/array to larger cluster
> sizes, 4k being way to small in my opinion.
>
> Paging means little of you are not paging a lot.
>
> What you have to do, to find the optimal size, is determine the size of
> 70% of your files and then determine the amount of wasted slack space
> they consume and setup the cluster size for that. Sure, tracking small
> cluster sizes is a performance hit, but wasted disk space is often more
> of a problem for users.
>
> --
>
> (E-Mail Removed)
> remove 999 in order to email me

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Also remember that if you go larger than 4k size clusters, the built in
> defrag utility does not function on that drive/partition.

I never use MS Defrag, I run the big brother to it "Diskeeper" and find
no problems with it.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me