Each of the few times I've tried to install Windows Vista onto a partition
formatted NTFS with cluster size ove 4KB (e.g. 8KB or 32KB), the Windows
Vista installer refuses to allow Vista to go on said partition.

Does anyone know more about this etc. etc. ?

Thank you for any replies.

Saucy

Don't believe it can be done. Even a post install Cluster resizing
will result in an inability to boot Vista.

"Saucy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Each of the few times I've tried to install Windows Vista onto a partition
> formatted NTFS with cluster size ove 4KB (e.g. 8KB or 32KB), the Windows
> Vista installer refuses to allow Vista to go on said partition.
>
> Does anyone know more about this etc. etc. ?
>
> Thank you for any replies.
>
> Saucy

"Saucy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Each of the few times I've tried to install Windows Vista onto a partition
> formatted NTFS with cluster size ove 4KB (e.g. 8KB or 32KB), the Windows
> Vista installer refuses to allow Vista to go on said partition.
>
> Does anyone know more about this etc. etc. ?


I haven't tried this with Vista's system partition, as it would be stupid
to. With the massive amount of tiny files on the C: drive, you'd lose loads
of disk space. If you want to get better performance, get fast hard drives
like WD Raptors, or a RAID-0 array, or both, like me.

ss.

"Saucy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote...
> Each of the few times I've tried to install Windows Vista onto a partition
> formatted NTFS with cluster size ove 4KB (e.g. 8KB or 32KB), the Windows
> Vista installer refuses to allow Vista to go on said partition.

Hi Saucy,

I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect it cannot be done. In previous versions of
Windows, installation worked by creating files and directories on top of the
file system (ie using file system APIs). Vista uses an "image-based"
installation method, where the new installation is written to disk as
physical blocks. This is how Vista was able to greatly reduce its
installation time - no messing around with high-level data structures. The
flip-side is that installation probably assumes a default block size of the
disk, ie, 4K.

I agree with my respected colleague Synapse Syndrome, that a larger block
size would be counter-productive on the system volume. I've experiemented
with different block sizes over the years, but my overall expereince was
that 8K or larger is only useful for improving performance in very, very
specific scenarios: mainly, contiguous streaming data from large files - ie,
a media server. Even databases with very large database files didn't really
benefit, because the read-write pattern was still scattered throughout the
file, not long stretches of contiguous chunks.

If you're running a scenario which would benefit from larger block size,
you'll certainly want to keep the data on a different volume to the boot
volume, anyway.

If you want to play with different block sizes just for the hell of it - hey
by all means, go for it! That's what I did :-) But don't expect to see
significant changes in performance; and (apparently) don't expect to change
the Windows system drive from the defualt 4k.

Hope it helps,

--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

Good morning:

Thanks to you guys for your replies. I'm using WDs now, but with the Maxtors
the 'magic number', so to speak, was 32. 32KB stripe and 32 KB clusters. I
could load a newsgroup like this so quickly ['still will as the store will
go on another partition on the WDs]. The WDs I have are striped as well, but
I don't know if or what is any sort of 'sweet spot' they have. I don't know
if I have the time these days nor the inclination to find out. But I thought
I'd try with clusters. Anyway, seems like Microsoft has taken another thing
out of our hands! : ) Oh well .. but yes, Vista installs very quickly
so while there's loss there's gain.

Have a good day.
Saucy

Synapse Syndrome wrote:
>
>
> I haven't tried this with Vista's system partition, as it would be
> stupid to. With the massive amount of tiny files on the C: drive,
> you'd lose loads of disk space. If you want to get better
> performance, get fast hard drives like WD Raptors, or a RAID-0 array,
> or both, like me.

Solution for tiny files eating up disk space:

1. Remove cushions from couch.
2. Collect small change.
3. Buy enormous disk.

"Saucy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> 32KB stripe and 32 KB clusters. I could load a newsgroup like this so
> quickly ['still will as the store will go on another partition on the
> WDs].

If it actually did help with XP, it certainly won't with Vista. Windows
Mail has a new database format, with individual files for every email and
usenet post. With the hundreds of thousands of 1KB files in the mailstore,
putting it onto a large cluster NTFS drive would be a really bad idea.

ss.