Best Cluster Size For FAT 32 C:\ ?

[MERRICK]

Hi,
I want to know opinions on ideal cluster size for a 2 GB C:\ Partition for FAT 32 (Win98SE). Some references I read:

http://windowsx.techconnect.ws/enhance/cluster.html

Cluster - Space or Speed

What is cluster? Cluster is block size when keep data in your hard drive. You can use partition manager program to manage your harddisk and resize cluster. If you resize cluster to large size, your data will transfer faster and improve Windows performance. But if you resize to small size, the wasted space will reduce to save your space and your data will transfer slower. I recommend you set cluster to small size only to hard drive you want to keep data that rarely use and do not set cluster to small size in Windows drive or swapfile drive. Your machine will slow as hell!


http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/tips_a_-_d.html

DETERMINING WASTED SPACE ON HARD DRIVE. Cluster size is the amount of space used to store a file. For example, if the cluster size is 16 kb, a 1 kb file will take up 16 kb of space on a hard drive. The 15 kb that is lost is known as slack space. The cluster size used by the system is determined by the size of the partition. Here is a chart that will give approximate space lost for an average user.

Partition Type and Size Cluster Size Wasted Space
512 MB - 8191 MB 4K 4%
8192 MB - 16383 MB 8K 10%
16384 MB - 32767 MB 16K 25%
Larger than 32768 MB 32K 40%

So what do you think? If it's only for the O/S partition, is a 4k cluster better?

[mmonnin]

Try several. Bench and try again until you get the best score and not lose too much space.

The OS has lots of small files in it. For the OS you would rather have speed or a bigger cluster

[MERRICK]

Thanks for the response.

[primesuspect]

My opinion goes like this: the larger cluster size, the better... 64K clusters were a concern in the late 90's when we were seeing 10gb drives as amazingly huge. When most people had 2gb-4gb drives, yes, slack space was a concern. But now, with 80gb being the norm and 200+ gig drives becoming common, I would take performance over slack. Besides, if you think about it, there aren't THAT many 64K files on a Windows system anymore... Most log files are even larger than 64K anymore.

So, I say on a single drive, go with 64K clusters.

[MERRICK]

Okay to get this right,

For 64k Clusters on my C:\ partition:

at the A:\ prompt type Format C: /z:128 ?

I have always formatted my Audio drives for 32K clusters:

at the A:\ prompt type Format D: /z:64

Have you tried the 64K clusters for RAID 0 Audio drives?

[primesuspect]

Yes, for RAID 0 audio and video stuff, I have used 64/64 exclusively and gotten really good performance. By 64/64 I mean 64K clusters on the RAID and 64K clusters NTFS.

I recommend NTFS over FAT32, it tends to bench a little faster.

[MERRICK]

Thanks Prime. I appreciate these tips. I have been using 16k O/S and 32K audio clusters and I can't wait to do the 64/64:D

I appreciate the NTFS point but I don't have the resources (NT/2000/XP).

But please indulge me this last point. In FAT32 using Win98SE Format, For the 64K clusters is this my correct prompt entry?:

at the A:\ prompt type Format X: /z:128 ?


Thanks a bunch!

[danball1976]

Thankfully NTFS (the version WinXP uses) is only 4KB a cluster for any size drive

[primesuspect]

Danball: That is wrong. Try to verify your info before you post something in a thread that other people might take as solid advice. Win2K & XP DEFAULT to a 4K cluster size, and this is not desirable, so to say "thankfully" it sounds like you think 4K is a good cluster size, when if you read back over the thread you'll see that the larger cluster size is more desirable. You can change the cluster size of any NTFS partition before installing Windows on it.

MERRICK: Yes, that's the correct FORMAT format :) to get 64K clusters.

[danball1976]

And I never was given the choice to change cluster size when installing XP (I always install outside of Windows).

I don't want to do it within Windows right now. I don't think it matter for me since I don't do anything intensive on my computer.

Here is the options given for me:

[primesuspect]

Okay? What am I missing?

[profdlp]

Can the cluster size of an NTFS partition be changed using Partition Magic 8?

Or am I asking for it?


Prof

PS: If you haven't done so already, please give us your input in the Short-Media Recommended Utilities thread under General Software!!!:nudge:

[mmonnin]

Yes you can. Here is a pic of the screen for it.

Partition ->Advanced Options->Resize Cluster

[danball1976]

659MB on a drive is too much to loose. Even on a 120GB drive.

[MERRICK]

Prime: Thanks for this valuable info. I am now a 64k converrt

Danball: I am a cheap **** so I hate the idea of wasting anything let alone HD space but I think at least a larger cluster partion dedicated to only the O/S is a good compromise to get the speed.

Since I record mostly in 24/96 with .wav tracks of 90~130 MB for a single file, I imagine those 64k clusters will get used up efficiently. But now that you've gone and intrigued me, is it possible and advvantageous to create 128k clusters for 24/96 .wav files?

This is purley academic:

Can one mix file systems? Could one have FAT32 for o/s apps etc. and NTFS for audio/video data or visa versa?

Thanks again guys!

[primesuspect]

MERRICK:

yes, you can mix filesystems on NT.. You can have each partition be whatever FS you want.

[MERRICK]

Prime, You got in there while I was updating the previous post with additional questions. I see that you say NT can mix file systems but I presume 9.x can't?

Also:

Since I record mostly in 24/96 with .wav tracks of 90~130 MB for a single file, I imagine those 64k clusters will get used up efficiently. But now that you've gone and intrigued me, is it possible and advvantageous to create 128k clusters for 24/96 .wav files?

[primesuspect]

I don't know of an easy way to make 128K clusters. I think 64k is about it.

Non-NT systems (thus, any 9x) will not support NTFS without some goofy NTFS extensions which I would never trust with valuable data.

[profdlp]

I think I'm going to try 64K clusters sometime this weekend.

If you don't hear from me for a while, you'll know I dorked it up!:D


Prof

[MERRICK]

I promise to leave ya alone after this:D


I don't know of an easy way to make 128K clusters. I think 64k is about it


1] "easy" alludes that you might know a "hard" way?

2] If there is a 128k cluster, would it be advantageous when using 100MB files?

3] I have 32k clusters on my current audio drive (the one with the big 100MB .wav files) but I keep these tiny ~30kb Cool Edit Session files on the drive as well. Should I move the small files to a different drive to reclaim space or are they occupying no more than a single cluster anyway? And:

4] Does the presence of these small session files impede I/O speed of the larger .wav files by being on the same physical drive?

Please no talking during the exam and when you're finished turn your paper in at the teachers desk and quietly leave the room.;)

[MERRICK]

profdlp How rational of you. God Bless your guts!:)

[primesuspect]

MERRICK said
I promise to leave ya alone after this:D
I don't know of an easy way to make 128K clusters. I think 64k is about it


1] "easy" alludes that you might know a "hard" way?


Actually, I misspoke. I don't know of a way to create 128K clusters. Sorry :)


2] If there is a 128k cluster, would it be advantageous when using 100MB files?

Seems like theoretically that would be true.


3] I have 32k clusters on my current audio drive (the one with the big 100MB .wav files) but I keep these tiny ~30kb Cool Edit Session files on the drive as well. Should I move the small files to a different drive to reclaim space or are they occupying no more than a single cluster anyway? And:

4] Does the presence of these small session files impede I/O speed of the larger .wav files by being on the same physical drive?

Those files' presence won't negatively affect your performance or space on a 32K clustered drive. They're taking up 1 cluster each anyway.

[MERRICK]

Thank You!

When You're In NYC drop me a line. I'll buy ya a Beer!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

[primesuspect]

hey no problem :)

[MERRICK]

Just did a refromat on a ~4GB C:\ partition. I was denied on:

A:\FORMAT C: /Z:128

But allowed on:

A:\FORMAT C:\ Z:64

I suspect that the small 4gb partition is the culprit. I will be creating the full 8gb partition in a week or two and try again Z:/128


That's the word from here. Back to you Roger...:D

[panzerkw]

What is the difference in performance between a 4K size and a 64K size?

[MERRICK]

What is the difference in performance between a 4K size and a 64K size?

In short a bigger cluster size will allow the o/s to run faster but the tradeoff is you lose some HD real estate. This was a bigger issue in the days before monster capacity hard drives. Primesuspect explains it much better if you read this thread from the begining.

[panzerkw]

I did read the thread from the beginning, but I have only read that "it's faster", and I would like to know by how much.

[MERRICK]

That I do not know. I am only trying this for the first time now. I have always maxed out at 16k clusters. I'm going on Prime's reputation here. It would be interesting to know how to benchmark this though. Perhaps ATTO read scores go up?:scratch:

[profdlp]

MERRICK said
That I do not know. I am only trying this for the first time now. I have always maxed out at 16k clusters. I'm going on Prime's reputation here. It would be interesting to know how to benchmark this though. Perhaps ATTO read scores go up?:scratch:

I think that's right. I used to make a gazillion partitions even on a small (say 8GB to 20GB) in order to maximize HD space. It had become a part of my wipe-and-reload routine, and was a hard habit to break. I did notice a performance drop in some tasks.


Prof

PS: If you haven't done so already, please give us your input in the “Utilities Discussion – Week2” thread under General Software!!! This week we are asking for your recommended programs in these categories: HD Speed benchmark, CD Drive Speed Benchmark, Video Performance benchmark:nudge:

[Spinner]

I'm always inclined not to use such large cluster sizes i.e 64K unless you use your machine for the soul purpose of disk intensive tasks, e.g video editing etc.

I only tend to tweak the cluster sizes on systems I build which have RAID arrays. For the everyday run of the mill PC, I as a rule stick to the default 4K for NTFS. Simply because it tends to suit the everyday operations and file accesses most typical users perform.

By all means experiment, but my personal recommendation to the everyday Joe, would be to stick to 4K if you're not planning to do anything like Vid editing or Audio stuff.

However, I imagine you personally Merrick might have a need for a more tailored partition or two, so like people have said, you need to experiment. That being said though, I still suggest you keep your cluster size relatively small, for a basic volume.

Just my thoughts.

[MERRICK]

Hey profdlp

Thanks for the ATTO confirmation. And the other info. Very interesting to hear someone with experience.


Hey Spinner

In fact this is for a standalone audio editing machine slated for RAID 0 but I am speaking of FAT 32. I'm trying out some stuff on a test machine. Basically I'm looking for 98SE tweaks for better optimization. My other computers are standard fare when it comes to cluster. I am also learning that settings for FAT 32 and NTFS are quite different.

[Spinner]

Yes NTFS and FAT32 settings will be very different. If it is eventually for a RAID array then, my support for having 64K cluster size grows. I had a NTFS array with a 64K stripe and 64K cluster size when I first set up my RAID 0 array. But after many months of testing I ended up settling for 16K/16K as it is really the best of both worlds.

Just remember how lucky you are having programs like Paragon Disk Manager, which save you having to reformat everytime you want to change the cluster size of a partition. When I was originally trying to find the best cluster size, stripe size combo, I had to keep reformatting everytime.

Keep us aprised as to your progress, as like people have pointed out, FAT32 is a whole different ball game in comparison to NTFS.

Cheers

[MERRICK]

I just found these excellent articles that cover NTFS and FAT32 partitioning. They go from the ABC's to more advanced options.

Definitly recomended! :D


http://fdisk.radified.com/


http://partition.radified.com/

[profdlp]

MERRICK, that site is awesome. I would have mentioned this earlier, but I was too busy reading the articles.

Great Link!


Prof:)

[Spinner]

Yeah, great links, I'm gonna add them to the RAID FAQ's thread.

[mrgcav]

I am seting up a triple boot ME, XP, XPSP2 System. I have done this several times before. All partitions are Fat32.
(NTFS has shown little improvement in speed over FAT32 for me and NTFS makes data recovery very difficult.)
Each OS is disected into several parts, spanning several partitions, Booting partition, Temp Partition, Swapfile Partition, Program files, Data etc...
My concern is cluster sizes. I am not concerned with wasting space. I want only to speed up my system.
Windows Millenium:
ME has a native cluster size of 32k, when using the "format" command.
What is the default page size of the one page for the swapfile/i386.swp ?


Windows XP:
XP has a native cluster size of 4k on NTFS.
What is the XP native FAT32 Cluster size ?


64K Clusters:
Some litature I have read says ME can read 64k clusters, Partition magic 8 warns against it and limits using 64k clusters to under 4GB partitions.
Which is correct ?

Somewhere in this pose MERRICK said: Format D: /z:64 would create 64k clusters. Please provide more detail. What OS ? How big was your partition ?
I tried it and it did not work. I got 32k clusters. I used a Win ME boot disk.


In general I need more ME help than XP help.

Partition magic 8.05 and other tools available. Contact me.
Partition magic 8.05 available. Contact me.
Partition magic 8.05 available. Contact me.

yOUR HELP WILL BE REWARDED.
mrgcav@HOTMAIL.COM