NTFS cluster size

[Sloakie]

Is there a way to change the default size during an unattended installation of Windows 2000? I want 2kb instead of 512 bytes.

 

[bill_mr]

Why would you want to waste so much hd space?

 

[AndyHui]

Is there any reason in particular for you to go to 2KB per cluster rather than 512 bytes? Storage is more efficient on 512 bytes rather than 2KB....you end up wasting less space.

 

[Sloakie]

I don't think there will be much wasted space. I only use a third of my disk space now anyway. And how many files on your harddrive are less than 2KB? I think the lost space will be worth the speed gains, no matter how small.

The doesn't see to be a way to change the size anyway. I can't use the NTFS format program in MS-DOS, and the one format program that's on the Window's 2000 boot disk doesn't support the /A option. Partiition magic doesn't change the size either. The only way I can see doing it is install Windows 2000 on my other harddrive, then format my new one from the command prompt in Windows (the only way I found that the format works with the /a option), then install Windows 2000 on the new one. That's a lot of time and work.

I wouldn't have this problem if Microsoft would make a decent Recovery Console. The Recovery Console is pretty much useless. I doesn't allow you to do anything.

 

[Spiff]

Use of large v small cluster sizes are dependent on how you use the system. with lots of small files small cluster sizes are better in terms of disk space and performance. But with large files and large cluster sizes, you gain in performance.

In fact, for some database systems, specifying the cluster size is recommended. However, this isn't an arbitrary size. As an example Oracle recommends a cluster size that is a multiple of 8k. This is due to the way Oracle uses the filesystem and in the long run increases overall performance of the database.

Although Sloakie may not be housing a large db for which he is attempting to achieve performance, the idea that large cluster size increases overall performance is still true. Larger sizes mean fewer areas of the disk to search. It will mean lots of wasted disk space however.

 

[Floyd]

Sloakie, I'm almost certain Partition Magic will allow you to specify the cluster size...that is, I know it is an available option but I don't know if there's some reason why it wouldn't be permissible for NTFS.

While we're on the subject, does anyone know know if larger clusters are beneficial to writing data in large amounts (as opposed to seeking & reading)?

I recently purchased a 40GB dedicated video capture drive, and I'm wondering if large clusters would improve capture performance. I'm inclined to think it won't, since we're talking about a single file being written more or less contiguously across the disk (assuming the disk isn't fragmented). Anyway, I prepared drive with Partition Magic in FAT32 with 32kB clusters, which I believe is the default cluster size for a partition of this size. Cluster waste is not an issue cosidering the multi-GB files which will be stored on it, so would increasing the cluster size improve I/O?

Best regards,
Floyd