If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS
partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:47:48 -0400 "Yousuf Khan" bbbl67
@spammenot.yahoo.com wrote in article Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
On 15/04/2012 12:13 PM, Jason wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:47:48 -0400 "Yousuf Khan"bbbl67 @spammenot.yahoo.com wrote in Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. NTFS was originally called HPFS, for High Performance File System. It was designed to be fast and reliable with low cluster sizes, so as to reduce blank space. NTFS inherited that ability, so you will see small differences in performance when you sue larger clusters. Whether those small diffs are worth it is your call. IMO, the advantage of larger cluster sizes has been overtaken by improved hardware performance. HPFS was devised was back the days when MS was creating OS/2 for IBM (and itself). After the split, MS renamed its version NT. Up to NT 3.5, both OS/2 and NT could read and write each other's file systems. Up to Win 2000 there was still a directory labelled OS/2 buried in the Windows/System tree. HTH, Wolf K. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
On 4/15/12 1:20 PM, Wolf K wrote:
On 15/04/2012 12:13 PM, Jason wrote: On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:47:48 -0400 "Yousuf Khan"bbbl67 @spammenot.yahoo.com wrote in Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. NTFS was originally called HPFS, for High Performance File System. It was designed to be fast and reliable with low cluster sizes, so as to reduce blank space. NTFS inherited that ability, so you will see small differences in performance when you sue larger clusters. Whether those small diffs are worth it is your call. IMO, the advantage of larger cluster sizes has been overtaken by improved hardware performance. HPFS was devised was back the days when MS was creating OS/2 for IBM (and itself). After the split, MS renamed its version NT. Up to NT 3.5, both OS/2 and NT could read and write each other's file systems. Up to Win 2000 there was still a directory labelled OS/2 buried in the Windows/System tree. My question would be, does it affect the amount of data that can be stored? Logically, the smaller the cluster size, it would require more entries on the disk to keep track of which cluster belonged to which file, and the order of the clusters. Larger sized clusters would require fewer entries. If your files are relatively small, I wouldn't think there'd be much difference. But, what if you have huge amounts of large and larger video, graphic, and audio files? -- Ken Mac OS X 10.6.8 Firefox 11.0 Thunderbird 11.0.1 LibreOffice 3.5.1.2 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
In article , Jason wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:47:48 -0400 "Yousuf Khan" bbbl67 wrote in article Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. It really has nothing to do with differences in performance, and more to do with if you choose the wrong cluster size for the files you intend to store, but the more wasted space per file. Youd want a smaller clsuetr size if you were storing thousands of small MIDI files, and larger sized clusters for large backup files or DV video captures. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
"Ken Springer" wrote in message ... On 4/15/12 1:20 PM, Wolf K wrote: On 15/04/2012 12:13 PM, Jason wrote: On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:47:48 -0400 "Yousuf Khan"bbbl67 @spammenot.yahoo.com wrote in Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. NTFS was originally called HPFS, for High Performance File System. It was designed to be fast and reliable with low cluster sizes, so as to reduce blank space. NTFS inherited that ability, so you will see small differences in performance when you sue larger clusters. Whether those small diffs are worth it is your call. IMO, the advantage of larger cluster sizes has been overtaken by improved hardware performance. HPFS was devised was back the days when MS was creating OS/2 for IBM (and itself). After the split, MS renamed its version NT. Up to NT 3.5, both OS/2 and NT could read and write each other's file systems. Up to Win 2000 there was still a directory labelled OS/2 buried in the Windows/System tree. My question would be, does it affect the amount of data that can be stored? Logically, the smaller the cluster size, it would require more entries on the disk to keep track of which cluster belonged to which file, and the order of the clusters. Larger sized clusters would require fewer entries. If your files are relatively small, I wouldn't think there'd be much difference. But, what if you have huge amounts of large and larger video, graphic, and audio files? But those drives by definition arent likely to be where you are obsessed about space use. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
On 15/04/2012 12:13 PM, Jason wrote:
I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. Well, I have gone ahead done the reformat to one my partitions, I'm now using 64K clusters on that. I'm in the middle of some rearrangement of data on my hard drives. So what I've been going around doing is copying and moving entire file systems worth of data from one drive to another. When I did the transfer between a default 4K cluster drive and a 64K cluster drive, the speed of transfer is not hugely different. However, there was a huge difference in responsiveness of the drives. I was watching the transfers (which lasted a couple of hours each) on the Windows 7 Resource Monitor, and you could see that the 4K drives were absolutely pegged at 100% disk activity, with disk queues that were hovering =1.0. But the drive that was using 64K clusters had disk activity of 40-50%, and disk queues well 1.0. This worked in both directions, whether I was copying off of the 64K drive, or copying to the 64K drive, it was the same way. Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
"GMAN" wrote in message ... In article , Jason wrote: On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:47:48 -0400 "Yousuf Khan" bbbl67 wrote in article Has anyone experimented with non-standard cluster sizes on NTFS partitions? Typically, the default behaviour is that when creating the file system, the format utility chooses the ideal cluster size based on the size of the partition. But typically the highest it ever chooses is 4KB. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc767961.aspx But there are options for choosing upto 64KB, which never get chosen by default. I have a file system that I calculated has a simple average file size of 115MB! I was thinking for files that large, I should choose the highest possible cluster size available. Yousuf Khan I have partitions with large numbers of enormous .wav files I've recorded. I have experimented with cluster sizes all the way to 64k but see very little, if any, change in performance. That surprises me. I also have several external HDD's (USB- and eSATA-attached) for backup and have done the same tests with the same result. It really has nothing to do with differences in performance, and more to do with if you choose the wrong cluster size for the files you intend to store, but the more wasted space per file. Youd want a smaller clsuetr size if you were storing thousands of small MIDI files, and larger sized clusters for large backup files or DV video captures. But again, with that last situation, you are likely to be choosing between 2TB and 3TB drives base on $/GB and the small saving in free space isnt likely to matter. All that really does is see you be able to squeeze one more file on the drive at most. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
On 15/04/2012 4:08 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
My question would be, does [cluster size] affect the amount of data that can be stored? Yes. The smaller the cluster size, the less wasted space. Suppose a file is 87 K. With 4K clusters, that will take 22 clusters == 88K space for 87 K data. With 64K clusters, you'll need 2 == 128K space for 87K data. Now suppose your documents average about 87K in size.... HTH, Wolf K. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Reformatting to non-standard NTFS cluster sizes?
On 15/04/2012 4:08 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
My question would be, does it affect the amount of data that can be stored? Logically, the smaller the cluster size, it would require more entries on the disk to keep track of which cluster belonged to which file, and the order of the clusters. Larger sized clusters would require fewer entries. You're thinking of the FAT system which has a global bitmap of clusters assigned to files and folders. The bigger the drive and the smaller the cluster size, the bigger the bitmap gets. In NTFS, it's more of an extent-based system, which basically contains a starting and ending cluster address of all extents belonging to a file. The metadata on the disk only grows with the number of files, but not necessarily with the size of the file system. So the size of the clusters won't make a difference to the size of the metadata, just the number of files you put into it. If your files are relatively small, I wouldn't think there'd be much difference. But, what if you have huge amounts of large and larger video, graphic, and audio files? However, you will get more slack with small files in a large-cluster filesystem. Even the smallest files will take up a minimum of 64K with a filesystem with 64K clusters. However, I've found that the responsiveness of a large-cluster-size filesystem, is much greater when you also have large files. Yousuf Khan Yousuf Khan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTFS cluster size based on file size distribution | Bob Fry | Homebuilt PC's | 1 | November 13th 08 11:01 PM |
Best size cluster for NTFS partition | Alex Coleman | Storage (alternative) | 7 | August 17th 05 02:29 AM |
How to find cluster size of NTFS | Tod | Storage (alternative) | 2 | September 28th 04 10:33 PM |
Cluster sizes | Colin Bearfield | General | 3 | January 24th 04 04:02 PM |
NTFS cluster resizing | Andrew Rossmann | Storage (alternative) | 0 | January 4th 04 05:39 PM |