NTFS in XP

[Kllg]

!

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]

512 bytes and 4KB, obviously. Sorry about that.

 

[Prabhat]

HI,

Thanks for the info. The information is helpful and now I am Clear on the
concept.

Thanks
Prabhat


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.
NTFSWindows Version
v1.2NT 3.51, NT 4
v3.02000
v3.1XP, 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.

 

[Prabhat]

Hi,

In My XP PArtition I have 4K Cluster SIZE. But rest all partition (DATA
partitions) are 512 Bytes.
First I have Converted them from FAT32 to FAT32 4 K Aligned and then NTFS
Using PM 7 But Still I get 512b.

Thanks
Prabhat

 

[Prabhat]

Hi, I Will look into the Tool.

I agree. Rinning the 9x utility 'winalign' BEFORE the convert is the only

good solution I know. (Too late, of course for the

 

[Prabhat]

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.

Thanks for the Info.
I wanted to go for Good Performance (Not spece efficient - because now
storage media is becomming less price) and Of course LESS Fragements. So I
sould go for 4K instead of 512bytes.

Thanks
Prabhat

 

[Prabhat]

Hi, I think you are right. The 4K Cluster will perform better then the 512
byte.

 

[Prabhat]

Hi Ken,

You are right. That is the reason I asked how do I convert the FAT32
Partitions (D:, E: etc. As My C: - The XP Partition is already 4K NTFS) to
4K NTFS without loosing Data.
Please suggest.

Thanks
Prabhat

 

[Al Dykes]

Thanks for the Info.
I wanted to go for Good Performance (Not spece efficient - because now
storage media is becomming less price) and Of course LESS Fragements. So I
sould go for 4K instead of 512bytes.

Thanks
Prabhat

If your files are compressible compression gives you fwere fragments,
also. Think about it. Life's full of tradeoffs. You could experiment
and benchmark but I doubt you'd see any performance difference.

I had an application reading GB-sized files containing only numbers
that was bottlenecked on I-O. NTFS compression reduced the file size
by a factor of 10 and sped the application significantly. YMMV

 

[Prabhat]

Hi, I will also try to get details about the NTFS Compression - Its
Advantages and Disadvantages etc etc.
Thanks for the Info.Prabhat

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Hi Ken,

You are right. That is the reason I asked how do I convert the
FAT32
Partitions (D:, E: etc. As My C: - The XP Partition is already
4K
NTFS) to 4K NTFS without loosing Data.
Please suggest.

Read http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm which talks about the
issue regarding cluster size.



Also note that conversion is a big step, affecting everything on
your drive. When you take such a big step, no matter how
unlikely, it is always possible that something could go wrong.
For that reason, it's prudent to make sure you have a backup of
anything you can't afford to lose before beginning.

 

[Richard Urban]

So glad someone else has seen this also.

I have been saying for a long time that the CPU compressing and
decompressing a smaller file is speedier than the hard drive reading/writing
the original larger file. The hard drive is the slowest peripheral in the
data chain. RAM, CPU, FSB - they all are many times faster that a hard
drive. And they run at their specified speeds constantly. A hard drive has
"moments" of greater speed in bursts.

--
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!

 

[Ken Blake]

In

So glad someone else has seen this also.

I have been saying for a long time that the CPU compressing and
decompressing a smaller file is speedier than the hard drive
reading/writing the original larger file.

My usual answer is "it depends." Here's some text I've posted on
this subject:

"There's a tradeoff involved. It takes time to compress and
uncompress a file each time you use it, and that slows you down.
But a compressed file is smaller and can be read and written
faster, and that speeds you up.

Which factor is more significant depends on the relative speeds
of your CPU and disk drive, but on most modern computers, it's
probably a near wash."

 

[Prabhat]

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion. Prabhat

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion. Prabhat

You're welcome. Glad to help.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup