What cluster size should I use for a single drive -not raided- that is going to be used for video editing (not storage, just working on it).
Would 16k apply?
I believe larger cluster sizes are better to work with big files.
Thanks.
0
Comments
Straight_ManGeeky, in my own wayNaples, FLIcrontian
edited October 2004
How big and is this on Windows XP??? The thing to remember about drive size and cluster size rules is that the old rule was based on FAT32. NTFS will probably be happiest at 4K clustering. so, since this is a single drive box, if you have XP, which SHOULD, FOR BEST RESULTS, BE NTFS for at least the boot partition, I would say 4K unless you have multiple partitions and use FAT32 for something else-- BUT, FAT32 is limited in max file size, number of file entries in a driectory, and number of directories in a partition root. Technically, for possibly huge media files, I would use NTFS for storage part, so same cluster size, 4K. Other rules can apply for raid, also.
Now if this were Linux, rad different cluster or node size rules might apply, or if this was a Windows 98 or ME box (and thus used FAT32) then your 16K would be reasonable. Note, for 2000 Pro same rules exist as for XP. Keep your HD defragged, you will have no problems with smaller clsuter size and performance will not be much different if you tried to force XP to use a 16K cluster. If the part is absolutely humonguous (say 130+ GB for partition, or more with the updates available for XP), then maybe 16K would be useful, but then only to limit the number of $MFT entries needed to track the huge partition as it got fuller and more fragged-- but performance will not differ much until $MFT fills up or is close to full.
For video editing on a non-raided drive, the larger the better. Use 64K clusters and buy and use Executive Software's Diskeeper 9.0 to defrag it. professional defrag software is essential for video editing.
Well, I forgot to mention in this thread but these are the same drives I've been talking about in other threads recently.
They are a couple of Maxtor SATA 160Gb 8mb. OS is windowsXP SP1 by the moment. Of course with NTFS on all partitions.
I'll be following edcentric's advice:
My advice is to put all OS, prog and finished work on one drive and only write working files to the other. That way the second drive can we wiped clean to eliminate file fragments and other trash.
The recommended cluster size I was asking for applies to second drive.
I already formatted it with 16k, but it's still empty so no problem in reformatting. I'll put it with 64k.
BTW it takes A LOT to finish hehe . Now the question is: first format was done completely because it was a brand new drive, I mean, no quick format. Should I fully re-format it again, or would a quick format work the same? Any performance impact?
4k is almost always the right ntfs choice. NTFS is optimized for 4k. A quick format would be fine. Unless you had very special needs you should format weith 4k for a normal all round usage disk.
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited October 2004
I already formatted it with 16k, but it's still empty so no problem in reformatting. I'll put it with 64k.
There are a couple drive management software suites available whereby you can change cluster size from Windows. I use Paragon Partition Manager. Works great. You can change the cluster size and keep your data intact.
Comments
Now if this were Linux, rad different cluster or node size rules might apply, or if this was a Windows 98 or ME box (and thus used FAT32) then your 16K would be reasonable. Note, for 2000 Pro same rules exist as for XP. Keep your HD defragged, you will have no problems with smaller clsuter size and performance will not be much different if you tried to force XP to use a 16K cluster. If the part is absolutely humonguous (say 130+ GB for partition, or more with the updates available for XP), then maybe 16K would be useful, but then only to limit the number of $MFT entries needed to track the huge partition as it got fuller and more fragged-- but performance will not differ much until $MFT fills up or is close to full.
They are a couple of Maxtor SATA 160Gb 8mb. OS is windowsXP SP1 by the moment. Of course with NTFS on all partitions.
I'll be following edcentric's advice:
The recommended cluster size I was asking for applies to second drive.
I already formatted it with 16k, but it's still empty so no problem in reformatting. I'll put it with 64k.
BTW it takes A LOT to finish hehe . Now the question is: first format was done completely because it was a brand new drive, I mean, no quick format. Should I fully re-format it again, or would a quick format work the same? Any performance impact?
Thanks.
Tex
If your running ntfs and didnt purposely change the size then its 4k. 4k is the default for all but very very small partition sizes.
Tex
Is right the writes to be faster than reads? Should I try to fix this in any way? How?
I'm very happy with this result overall, though.
Thanks for all the replies.
Conclusion... Let XP do most of the work...