I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2 Install
CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.

1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter, is 4
kb. Is this normal?

2. The NTFS master file record as viewed on my defragmenter takes up about 7
GB on my hard drive. The whole installed Win XP system is less than that:
about 4 GB. IOW, the master file record is larger than the active system! Is
this normal?

With my old FAT 32 system, the defragmenter did not even show a master file
system. Did I screw up in the conversion?

The computer is running fine. Should I count my blessings?
--

Walter
www.rationality.net

"Walter R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2 Install
> CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
>
> 1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter, is 4
> kb. Is this normal?
>
> 2. The NTFS master file record as viewed on my defragmenter takes up about
7
> GB on my hard drive. The whole installed Win XP system is less than that:
> about 4 GB. IOW, the master file record is larger than the active system!
Is
> this normal?
>
> With my old FAT 32 system, the defragmenter did not even show a master
file
> system. Did I screw up in the conversion?
>
> The computer is running fine. Should I count my blessings?
>



Fat32 does not have a MFT
but NTFS does.

But yet, 7 gigs seems large

It might possibly be a result of system restore being set too large,
by default, Windows creates a system restore considerably larger than
practical,
you may want to set the size down to just 1 or 2 %.

Walter R. wrote:
> I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2
> Install CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
>
> 1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter,
> is 4 kb. Is this normal?

Yes. That's what you get when you use the convert command. It is possible to
have a different cluster size and whether you should depends on your usage.
A large number of small files argues for a small cluster size since, on
average, you waste half a cluster for each file. If most of your files are
really big (video files for example), better efficiency is gained with a
larger cluster.

Usually the difference is insignificant.


>
> 2. The NTFS master file record as viewed on my defragmenter takes up
> about 7 GB on my hard drive. The whole installed Win XP system is
> less than that: about 4 GB. IOW, the master file record is larger
> than the active system! Is this normal?

Seems kinda large, but there's not much you can do about it.

>
> With my old FAT 32 system, the defragmenter did not even show a
> master file system. Did I screw up in the conversion?

Nah. The MFT is the directory structure for NTFS.

>
> The computer is running fine. Should I count my blessings?

You are even blessed more than you know. For example, NTFS is self-healing.
That is, when a physical error is detected, NTFS can repair it in the
background. NTFS provides greater security and other improvements.

Walter R. wrote:
> I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2 Install
> CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
>
> 1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter, is 4
> kb. Is this normal?

Yes, that is perfectly normal. 4K is the default NTFS cluster size,
unless you are running special applications the default 4K clusters are
preferable.


> 2. The NTFS master file record as viewed on my defragmenter takes up about 7
> GB on my hard drive. The whole installed Win XP system is less than that:
> about 4 GB. IOW, the master file record is larger than the active system! Is
> this normal?

Yes, that is also perfectly normal. The default MFT reserved zone is
12.5% of the drive, this is not lost space, if the drive starts to run
out of space to store files the file system will relent and cede space
inside the MFT for file storage. Also note that files of less than 1KB
are stored inside the MFT.


> With my old FAT 32 system, the defragmenter did not even show a master file
> system. Did I screw up in the conversion?

No, everything is as it should be.


> The computer is running fine. Should I count my blessings?

Everything is fine, there is no need to worry about the conversion.

John

"Walter R." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2 Install
>CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
>
>1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter, is 4
>kb. Is this normal?

Yes.

>2. The NTFS master file record as viewed on my defragmenter takes up about 7
>GB on my hard drive. The whole installed Win XP system is less than that:
>about 4 GB. IOW, the master file record is larger than the active system! Is
>this normal?

Many relatively small files live entirely in the MFT. Larger files
will have their first piece in the MFT and the rest elsewhere. So the
MFT is going to be quite large.

>With my old FAT 32 system, the defragmenter did not even show a master file
>system. Did I screw up in the conversion?

No, the FAT systems don't have an MFT. It's an NTFS thing.

It sounds like your conversion did just fine!

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
(E-Mail Removed)
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:50:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Walter R. wrote:
> > I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2
> > Install CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
> >
> > 1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter,
> > is 4 kb. Is this normal?
>
> Yes. That's what you get when you use the convert command.



Actually, that's not correct, and he was lucky to have used the
convert command and gotten the normal 4K cluster size. Most often the
result is a 512-byte cluster size. Read
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm for the details on this.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:50:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Walter R. wrote:
>>> I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2
>>> Install CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
>>>
>>> 1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter,
>>> is 4 kb. Is this normal?
>>
>> Yes. That's what you get when you use the convert command.
>
>
>
> Actually, that's not correct, and he was lucky to have used the
> convert command and gotten the normal 4K cluster size. Most often the
> result is a 512-byte cluster size. Read
> http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm for the details on this.

Actually, 4K IS the default cluster size when using the convert command. But
XP may not be able to use 4K because of the requirements of NTFS - for
example, the file system must start on a 4K boundary. If so, the convert
command reduces its cluster size to accommodate the physical medium.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:52:45 -0600, "HeyBub" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:50:46 -0600, "HeyBub" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Walter R. wrote:
> >>> I converted my c: drive from Fat 32 to NTFS, using the Win XP SP2
> >>> Install CD. The disk is a 50GB SATA.
> >>>
> >>> 1. The cluster size for the NTFS, as shown in the disk defragmenter,
> >>> is 4 kb. Is this normal?
> >>
> >> Yes. That's what you get when you use the convert command.
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, that's not correct, and he was lucky to have used the
> > convert command and gotten the normal 4K cluster size. Most often the
> > result is a 512-byte cluster size. Read
> > http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm for the details on this.
>
> Actually, 4K IS the default cluster size when using the convert command.


Yes, but what you get is not usually the default cluster size, as I
said.


> But
> XP may not be able to use 4K because of the requirements of NTFS - for
> example, the file system must start on a 4K boundary. If so, the convert
> command reduces its cluster size to accommodate the physical medium.


That's correct. Not only is it correct, but it's what most often
happens, and that's why I pointed it out.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup