Got a real stumper for you...

[Venger]

Greetings...

Installing a new hard drive, and decided to install Windows XP rather than
ghosting my Windows 2000 installation over.

Except...

I would like to utilize larger than 4k clusters on my 60GB boot partition.
FAT32 has performance issues at such sizes, and hence isn't an option. But
for the life of me I cannot get the boot partition at 32k NTFS clusters.

Here's what I've done:

1) Standard install. Gives you 4k cluster.

2) Formatted partition slaved to Win2k install, formatted as 32k cluster
(and copied 1.5GB pagefile.sys to drive just to get it at the front of the
drive). System copies files during setup, but on first reboot, reports a
disk read error and wants a Ctrl-Alt-Del.

3) Booted to recovery console, run FIX MBR and FIXBOOT - tried to just
format from there, but the command line format from the recovery console
does NOT allow you to change the size.

So...

Stuck here, looking to bump to 32k clusters. Now mind you, there may be a
reason this won't work - namely, the archaic boot code still lumping around
in Windows XP may not support cluster sizes larger than 4k - which would be
pathetic, but it would explain it. Otherwise, I am at a loss.

Can anyone get me to the promised land? Namely, a 32k cluster NTFS boot
partition for installing XP fresh?

Thanks...

Venger

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi Venger,

Windows XP's setup is *extremely* fussy about how a partition/volume is
setup for installation. It likes to do it itself, and often balks when a
third party tool is used - even another Windows disk manager. Use XP's setup
to create the installation partition, and format with the /A:32K switch.
Note also that you will not have file compression available to you, as the
largest cluster size it will work with is 4K. Why'd you want such a large
cluster size anyways? XP is built around the default of 4K, and performance
is usually best there.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Alias]

:
: Hi Venger,
:
: Windows XP's setup is *extremely* fussy about how a partition/volume is
: setup for installation. It likes to do it itself, and often balks when a
: third party tool is used - even another Windows disk manager.

I find that not to be the case. I have formatted and partitioned hard drives
on many computers with the floppies from the hard drive's manufacturer and
then installed XP Home and Pro with no problems whatsoever.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature
of your news reader program to email me.

Utiliza Responder al Remitente
para mandarme un mail.

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

FAT32 or NTFS?

There are some subtle differences in the versions of NTFS used by WinXP and
previous NT systems, and XP is unusually fussy about it in my experience. If
you've gotten it to work, that's great, but more often than not I find that
this causes issues during setup. Generally, to get past it, I recommend that
XP be allowed to create and format the installation partition.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Alias]

"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" wrote
: FAT32 or NTFS?

NTFS with cluster size 4K, of course, and no problems on over 50 computers
of all kinds and makes. The floppies even ask you if you are installing XP0,
XPSP1 or XPSP2 so it seems that previous NT systems are irrevelant.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature
of your news reader program to email me.

Utiliza Responder al Remitente
para mandarme un mail.
:
: There are some subtle differences in the versions of NTFS used by WinXP
and
: previous NT systems, and XP is unusually fussy about it in my experience.
If
: you've gotten it to work, that's great, but more often than not I find
that
: this causes issues during setup. Generally, to get past it, I recommend
that
: XP be allowed to create and format the installation partition.
:
: --
: Best of Luck,
:
: Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
:
: Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
:
: Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
:
: >
: > "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" wrote :
: > : Hi Venger,
: > :
: > : Windows XP's setup is *extremely* fussy about how a partition/volume
is
: > : setup for installation. It likes to do it itself, and often balks when
a
: > : third party tool is used - even another Windows disk manager.
: >
: > I find that not to be the case. I have formatted and partitioned hard
: > drives
: > on many computers with the floppies from the hard drive's manufacturer
and
: > then installed XP Home and Pro with no problems whatsoever.
: > --
: > Alias
: >
: > Use the Reply to Sender feature
: > of your news reader program to email me.
: >
: > Utiliza Responder al Remitente
: > para mandarme un mail.
: >
: >
:
:

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi,

If you're being asked which is being installed, then the drive manufacturer
is intelligent enough to know and account for it in the drive setup
software - it's about time they were. Thanks for the input.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Alex Nichol]

Use XP's setup
to create the installation partition, and format with the /A:32K switch.
Note also that you will not have file compression available to you, as the
largest cluster size it will work with is 4K

May I add - DO NOT use the /A:32K for a partition that is going to have
the system; programs; or page file on it. Anything but the default 4 K
loses efficiency in access to these.

What I would do is the initial install into a modest size partition,
made by setup. Say 20 GB. Then make a second partition for data - with
a big cluster if there is good reason for it. There rarely is

 

[Venger]

May I add - DO NOT use the /A:32K for a partition that is going to have
the system; programs; or page file on it. Anything but the default 4 K
loses efficiency in access to these.

Uh... HOW? The reason the 4k cluster size is used is that Microsoft hasn't
updated their disk compression code since 1995, and their knock-off
disk-defragmenter breaks on anything over 4k - I mean come on Redmond, what
year is this? The 4k boot cluster maximum is an artifact of old NT code, not
of any performance sweet spot. It is an anachronism. The only inefficiency
is file slack, which honestly, on a 60GB system partition with over 1.5
million clusters, isn't really an issue.

What I would do is the initial install into a modest size partition,
made by setup. Say 20 GB. Then make a second partition for data - with
a big cluster if there is good reason for it. There rarely is

I disagree. I have found the problem - someone emailed me with something I
didn't believe, but it was true - it's a BUG in SP2. I loaded an SP1
slipstream - and it worked fine. Not even fine - it was grossly fast. The
32k cluster size should, in theory, give notable improvements in speed,
resulting in far less fragmentation than 4k clusters, and far less file
table overhead,

So, anyone attempting to deploy slipstreamed SP2 on anything larger than
4k - forget it. Bug in code that MS will not hotfix yet due to not enough
reports. I imagine it will be fixed by the time SP3 comes out, but that is
bound to be next year, considering their new aversion to SP releases and
seeming preference for death by a thousand patches.

If you have information on how the 4k cluster is a performance enhancer,
with test backup as well as a logical explanation, I'll eat my flash drive.

Venger