NTFS cluster size

[Guest]

On installing XP over 98 I converted from FAT32 to NTFS.

Unfortunately I now have 512 byte cluster size, which according to most
people should be 4K. I should say that the part of the micorsoft website
where I was advised to use "convert" made no mention of potential cluster
size problems.

Anyway. Is there any way round this other than reformatiing the disk, which
abviously means reinstalling everything I have (which I don't fancy much)?

Thanks.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Partition Magic 8.0 has the capability to change cluster sizes.
http://www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic/

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

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

:

| On installing XP over 98 I converted from FAT32 to NTFS.
|
| Unfortunately I now have 512 byte cluster size, which according to most
| people should be 4K. I should say that the part of the micorsoft website
| where I was advised to use "convert" made no mention of potential cluster
| size problems.
|
| Anyway. Is there any way round this other than reformatiing the disk, which
| abviously means reinstalling everything I have (which I don't fancy much)?
|
| Thanks.

 

[Hal R]

512 clusters instead of 4K is NOT a problem, and should
be considered a benefit. The benefit is that hard drive
space is used more efficiently and, therefore, all else
being equal you should have more "free space". The only
downside to 512 is that you will likely have more
fragmentation, however, that too could be easily resolved
by simply defragmenting more often.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:11:01 -0800, "Hal R"

512 clusters instead of 4K is NOT a problem, and should
be considered a benefit. The benefit is that hard drive
space is used more efficiently and, therefore, all else
being equal you should have more "free space". The only
downside to 512 is that you will likely have more
fragmentation, however, that too could be easily resolved
by simply defragmenting more often.

In practice, folks find this a major performance drawback.

There's a bit more to optimal cluster size than how much free HD space
you get back. It amuses me to see the same ppl waving this around
that also let IE consume 256M+ space for cache, per user account.

Any idea how long it will take to "simply" defragging one big 120G C:
that's held as a large number of 152-byte clusters?

How "often" would you like to have to to that, and how well do you
expect it to work? Gah.

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

Hmmm... what was the *other* idea?