NTFS in XP

[Prabhat]

Hi All,



I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).



While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have formatted
the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.



Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.



When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as: NTFS
3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1? Please
Advice.



Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?



Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?



Thanks

Prabhat

 

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

Hi All,



I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).



While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.



Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.



When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
NTFS
3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
Please Advice.



Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?



Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?



Thanks

Prabhat

You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
NTFS file format revision number.

 

[Guest]

About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.

I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others, or you
used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.

512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more efficient. It
can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives you the
ability to use all the space on your drive.

 

[R. McCarty]

512 Byte clusters are not more efficient than 4KBytes. System
performance will suffer. 4KBytes is the preferred size. On any
partition with "Large" data modules (Video, Music) using large
clusters (up to 64KBytes) may be more efficient, but results in
more wastage.

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
NTFS file format revision number.

Actually, NTFS 3.0 in 2000 and 3.1 are sometimes called 5.0 and 5.1, depending on who you are listening to.



http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/ntfs.html
1.4 Is NTFS the same in every version of Windows?
No. They will look similar, but newer versions have extra features. For example, Windows 2000 has quotas.

NTFS Windows Version
v1.2 NT 3.51, NT 4
v3.0 2000
v3.1 XP, Server 2003

Version 1.2 is sometimes known as 4.0.
Versions 3.0 and 3.1 are sometimes referred to as 5.0 and 5.1.





and look at the bottom of :

http://www.mcmillan.cx/~alistair/ntfs.html



There are loads of other places you see this. I think I first read this in Partition Magic's documentation.



ss.

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite common
in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other than
destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools that can
change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects the data
storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any effect on
performance.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[R. McCarty]

Actually, the naming does vary between 3.1 & 5.1. Partition Magic uses
the 3.1 convention for Windows XP version of NTFS. The actual module
NTFS.Sys is version stamped 5.1.2600.2180 (for SP2). If you Google
for NTFS, you'll find several charts that show the version/history of NTFS.

You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
NTFS file format revision number.

Actually, NTFS 3.0 in 2000 and 3.1 are sometimes called 5.0 and 5.1,
depending on who you are listening to.



http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/ntfs.html
1.4 Is NTFS the same in every version of Windows?
No. They will look similar, but newer versions have extra features. For
example, Windows 2000 has quotas.

NTFS Windows Version
v1.2 NT 3.51, NT 4
v3.0 2000
v3.1 XP, Server 2003

Version 1.2 is sometimes known as 4.0.
Versions 3.0 and 3.1 are sometimes referred to as 5.0 and 5.1.





and look at the bottom of :

http://www.mcmillan.cx/~alistair/ntfs.html



There are loads of other places you see this. I think I first read this in
Partition Magic's documentation.



ss.

 

[R. McCarty]

Partition Magic will do Cluster resizing on a 512 Byte sized partition.
You have to do some prep work for it to work properly. I've done
this on a number of FAT32->NTFS conversions where the boundary
limitation created the 512-Byte clusters. There are a few pitfalls that
can cause it to fail (Sparse Data Attributes) & compressed files and
folders. You have to be careful with an XP (SP2) partition if you try
to use greater than 4K-Byte clusters. SP2 has an issue with record
spanning at boot and you'll get a "I/O error". If you want to use a XP
partition with 8K+ clusters you have to install XP using a Gold/SP1
disk and then apply Service Pack 2. Even with that, if you ever do a
"Repair Install" you'll get the I/O error and have to resize back to 4K.

 

[Richard Urban]

The most efficient cluster size is 4k. That is why it is the "default".

Change it to something other, without valid reason (such as a drive that
holds many huge AutoCAD drawings that ate over 25 meg each - and nothing
else) and you will impact the drive performance.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Lil' Dave]

Hi All,



I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).



While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have formatted
the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.



Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.



When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as: NTFS
3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1? Please
Advice.

PM has it right, you are wrong. This is the XP version of NTFS.

Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?

Is this a question, or an observation with an errant question mark?
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?

Read the commentary from Scot Finnie in the middle of this webpage:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Storage/Q_20795143.html

This supposedley does the trick if you choose to do so:
http://www.partition-manager.com/n_pm_requir.htm

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi,

I was aware of PM's alleged ability, but the two people I know that tried it
both ended up with corrupted volumes and loss of all data on them. I should
have rephrased that as "I do not know of any tools that can change the NTFS
cluster size post-conversion successfully".

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi Richard,

I don't think it will amount to much if anything of a hit on performance,
since it is presumably only storage volumes that are affected. The system
volume is using 4k clusters and, assuming the pagefile has not been moved,
the majority of the "action" will be happening here.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Mark L. Ferguson]

I agree. Rinning the 9x utility 'winalign' BEFORE the convert is the only good solution I know. (Too late, of course for the
original poster.)

 

[R. McCarty]

Rick,

I should have added the Universal caveat to image the drive
before even attempting it. Acronis also has a product that will
do it as well. Best I remember you have to uncompress the
DllCache Folder and remove any $NTUn..., which are also
compressed. It's definitely a 7-8 on the difficulty scale and
not a "Novice" type of procedure. Conversion is also very
time intensive, especially for users with a single partition or
a drive that holds 100% of their setup. A 6-10 Gigabyte disk
or partition will usually take 45-minutes to an hour. Best done
with a PQMagic DOS boot floppy/CD-R.

 

[Richard Urban]

But if the CAD files are stored on a dedicated partition the larger cluster
sizes do seem to decrease the file loading time a noticeable amount!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[SC]

Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more space
efficient.

And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster size.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.

I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that
makes
sense. Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format
of the
others, or you used a third party utility to do theother three
partitions.

512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more
efficient.

More efficient with regard to wasting less space to cluster
overhang (or "slack"), but it requires extra I/O and can result
in considerably poorer performance. Especially in these days of
very inexpensive hard drives, worrying about a small difference
in waste due to the amount of slack is counterproductive.

The total amount of slack on your drive is roughly half the
cluster size times the number of files. Even if one has as many
as 500,000 files, that's 128,000,00 bytes of slack for 256byte
clusters, and 1GB for 4K clusters. So the savings with 512-byte
clusters is 7/8 of a GB (probably less, because most people won't
have as many as 500,000 files).

These days hard drives sell for $1 US per GB, or less. I saw an
ad just this morning for a 160GB drive on sale for $40, or $.25 a
GB. The savings by using the smaller clusters is well under $1's
worth of disk space. For almost everyone, that's insignificant;
far better to worry about the performance implications of smaller
clusters. 4K is a much better cluster size than 512 bytes.

It can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files,
but it gives you the ability to use all the space on your
drive.

No it doesn't. No cluster size lets you use "all the space on
your drive." Smaller cluster sizes let you use more of it, but
"all" isn't possible.

 

[George Hester]

That's the version of NTFS in Windows XP. There seems to be some confusion
at Microsoft what the version of the file susyem is in their NT Operating
systems. But PM is telling you the truth.

 

[Alan Smith]

512K are large and will be less space efficient- or is it 512byte clusters
you mean?

 

[Ytt]

!

But if the CAD files are stored on a dedicated partition the larger
cluster sizes do seem to decrease the file loading time a noticeable
amount!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!