D
Donald McDaniel
Actually, no--it's the other way around. The smaller the cluster size, the
less space is wasted to slack. Unless a file's size is exactly a multiple of
the cluster size, every file will waste a portion of its last cluster. If
you assume that how much of that last cluster is wasted is randomly
distributed (not strictly true, but close enough for our purposes here) on
the average every file wastes half of one cluster. So total waste due to
slack is roughly the number of files times cluster size. Since 4K is 8 times
512 bytes, waste is 8 times as high with 4K clusters.
But in these days of very cheap hard drives, the value of that waste in
dollars (substitute your own local currency, if not dollars) is so small as
to be insignificant. I don't think any decisions about cluster size,
partition size, or anything else should even take that kind of waste into
consideration.
Thanks, Ken, I wasn't thinking too clearly when I wrote my last post.
In these days of 1gig or larger files, I am told that 4k clusters are
"better". Whether this means "better physical disk usage-wise" or
"better file storage/access-wise", or "better for sales of hard
drives" I'm not quite sure. But evidently the programmers at
Microsoft thought that 4k clusters are better (for some reason,
whatever it is) than 512 byte clusters, and made 4k clusters the
default for NTFS.
I really don't want to believe they intentionally created a file
storage system which WASTES most of our physical disk space, as you
say 4k clusters do.
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================