Best size cluster for NTFS partition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex Coleman
  • Start date Start date
A

Alex Coleman

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

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

:

| 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
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!"
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

I never use MS Defrag, I run the big brother to it "Diskeeper" and find
no problems with it.
 
Can't find your reference 814954 at Microsoft. Is the number
miskeyed?
Click to expand...

Welcome, Alex, I see you have met our village idiot. Pay no attention to
anything posted by Andrew the Eejit - his sole aim is to cause damage and
disruption to as many computers as possible. He used to post with a valid
address, but I reckon people started complaining to him personally, so he now
posts via the CDO; he probably reckons he can't be traced that way... ;o)
<eg>
 
Evadne Cake said:
Welcome, Alex, I see you have met our village idiot. Pay no attention to
anything posted by Andrew the Eejit - his sole aim is to cause damage and
disruption to as many computers as possible. He used to post with a valid
address, but I reckon people started complaining to him personally, so he
now
posts via the CDO; he probably reckons he can't be traced that way... ;o)
<eg>
Click to expand...

Are you trying to win a Bulwer-Lytton award? What's wrong with using the odd
period here and there to organise things?

Kerry
 
Leythos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yea, you've gained the whole 90 MB by doing that!
 
Agreed. For best overall file system performance, a 4K cluster size is
best. You only really need to consider going larger if the drive is used
for larger files (ie database, large multi-media files, etc...) and absolute
speed is the primary concern.

- Greg/Raxco Software
Microsoft MVP - Windows File System

Want to email me? Delete ntloader.
 
One of our servers uses 64KB block size. 700KB worth of cookie data
can easily take 120MB in user roaming profile directorys. This can be
copied to a 4KB block size partition and take around 7MB versus 120MB.

SQL server (MSDE) benefits from 64KB block size.

The benefit is if you have a bunch of large files (on a second drive,
don't do this on you Windows system drive), you get better performance
when loading/saving the files. If you setup a second drive just to
store a bunch of GB MPG files, the 64KB block size makes more sense.

This usually isn't worth it, though. If you want to increase your
performance, setup a RAID 0 across 2 or 3 drives. If you have two
drives that can sustain 50MB/s and you put them in RAID0 you can
realize 90-100MB/s sustained.

Some of this is my opinion, there are enough variables in systems today
that others may have different opinions based on those variables.
 
Back
Top