Best Cluster Size For FAT 32 C:\ ?

MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
edited March 2006 in Science & Tech
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?
«1

Comments

  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited June 2003
    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
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    Thanks for the response.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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?
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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!
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited June 2003
    Thankfully NTFS (the version WinXP uses) is only 4KB a cluster for any size drive
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited June 2003
    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:
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    Okay? What am I missing?
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited June 2003
    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:
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited June 2003
    Yes you can. Here is a pic of the screen for it.

    Partition ->Advanced Options->Resize Cluster
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited June 2003
    659MB on a drive is too much to loose. Even on a 120GB drive.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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!
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    MERRICK:

    yes, you can mix filesystems on NT.. You can have each partition be whatever FS you want.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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?
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited June 2003
    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
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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.;)
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    profdlp How rational of you. God Bless your guts!:)
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    Thank You!

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

    :beer::beer::beer::beer:
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited June 2003
    hey no problem :)
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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
  • panzerkwpanzerkw New York City
    edited June 2003
    What is the difference in performance between a 4K size and a 64K size?
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • panzerkwpanzerkw New York City
    edited June 2003
    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.
  • MERRICKMERRICK In the studio or on a stage
    edited June 2003
    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:
  • profdlpprofdlp The Holy City Of Westlake, Ohio
    edited June 2003
    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:
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited June 2003
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.