Clustersize 4K (default) vs. 64K

[Kosta 122]

This Q is probably specific for Nick, and whoever had experience with it!?I would be wasting GB of space on my Vrap if I set 64kb clustersize - apart from files being easily become defragmented, would in fact increase performance?!

[Guest Nick_N]

This Q is probably specific for Nick, and whoever had experience with it!?I would be wasting GB of space on my Vrap if I set 64kb clustersize - apart from files being easily become defragmented, would in fact increase performance?!

I only use 64K clusters for all perf and storage drivesIt is more a maintenance issue than solid perf however it DOES effect perf simply on the basis of how a file system works on NTFS and how stable the install remains without fragmenting. If you are asking if its worth 50MB/s.. of course not. Besides, you are not on a controller card anyway

[Kosta 122]

In other words, it would be worth going 64k if I were on the controller card. According to Acronis, 2GB are wasted now. With 64kb it would be 18,5GB. Thx.

[Guest Nick_N]

In other words, it would be worth going 64k if I were on the controller card. According to Acronis, 2GB are wasted now. With 64kb it would be 18,5GB. Thx.

What it does is increase the efficiency of file calls.Look at it like this.. For every set of files that are called by an application which exist on the 64K cluster format as compared to the 4K cluster format you have reduced the read calcs by about 16 times. In other words the system does not have to deal with the file chuck cluster locations between 4K and 64K as they all exist in one 64K clusterBeing on the right controller card the amount of data that can hit the system is increased as I showed you in another thread. Since the efficiency of file calls increases by using the 64K cluster format you are increasing the efficiency much greater by using the card. I use 64K for any drive (other than OS becuse the OS must be 4K) I dont care if its on the motherboard or SATA card however I also spec my drives so they will have plenty of room and will take some time to get to the my personal max of 65% full with that 64K format loss If space is an issue and you are on the motherboard ports then you have no choice but to use the default cluster size however if you can afford the space I would use 64K over 4K on any drive. The perf increase it does peovide will not be as great on motherboard ports but it is there none the less

[Sharrow 0]

If space is an issue and you are on the motherboard ports then you have no choice but to use the default cluster size however if you can afford the space I would use 64K over 4K on any drive. The perf increase it does peovide will not be as great on motherboard ports but it is there none the less

What would be the EXACT hit capacity wise for a 300GB VRap HDD if formatted using 64k clusters as opposed to 4k?Also, can the cluster size be set when using XP's built in Disk Management to format a drive? Or would one need some 3rd party software?ThanksKonrad

[Guest djt01]

What would be the EXACT hit capacity wise for a 300GB VRap HDD if formatted using 64k clusters as opposed to 4k?Also, can the cluster size be set when using XP's built in Disk Management to format a drive? Or would one need some 3rd party software?ThanksKonrad

It is a Disk Management option in Vista, XP Pro SP2 64 bit Edition and XP Pro SP3. Under

[Sharrow 0]

It is a Disk Management option in Vista, XP Pro SP2 64 bit Edition and XP Pro SP3. Under "Allocation unit size" there is a drop down menu with "64K".

Am on XPPro SP3 but can only get the 64K option when using diskmgmt.msc. Right clicking in explorer and selecting format only goes up to 4096 bytes.

[Guest djt01]

Am on XPPro SP3 but can only get the 64K option when using diskmgmt.msc. Right clicking in explorer and selecting format only goes up to 4096 bytes.

Interesting, the last time I used XP Pro SP3 I had the

[Sharrow 0]

No, SP3 added post install from an original SP2 CD. As long as I have the 64K option, even if it is a bit hidden...

[Guest djt01]

No, SP3 added post install from an original SP2 CD. As long as I have the 64K option, even if it is a bit hidden...

My copy of XP Pro (32Bit) has SP3 already incorporated into the OS but as far as formatting my E: drive goes I just go into

[Kosta 122]

What would be the EXACT hit capacity wise for a 300GB VRap HDD if formatted using 64k clusters as opposed to 4k?Also, can the cluster size be set when using XP's built in Disk Management to format a drive? Or would one need some 3rd party software?ThanksKonrad

Sharrow, it can be computed only on your computer on your partition. Using tool like Acronis Disk Director, or any other similar tool, will show you how much you waste if you change to 4K clusters. It all depends on your installation and files you have.When formatting, clustersize can be also set in XP's built in Format Tool.

[Sharrow 0]

Sharrow, it can be computed only on your computer on your partition. Using tool like Acronis Disk Director, or any other similar tool, will show you how much you waste if you change to 4K clusters. It all depends on your installation and files you have.

Hi KostaThe "wastage" is increased when formatting using 64K clusters as opposed to the default 4K ones, is that correct? So, for example, if I format a 300GB HDD using the default 4K clusters lets say I end up with 280GB of formatted space, whereas if I format using 64K clusters I would end up with less formatted space? 270GB? 250GB? More or less? Or does it depend on something else? If it depends on the "make up" of the installation itself then there is no way to determine what the wastage would be prior to installing?Konrad

I just go into "Computer Management", then "Disk Management" and right click the drive I want to format and under "NTFS" I have a "Allication Size" drop down menu with the 64K option.

That's the same as running diskmgmt.msc, yes?

[Guest Nick_N]

On a 300GB Raptor and 64K cluster format you end up with about a 279.5GB partition however that can vary some depending on the controller. Also, it can vary if you format to PRIMARY instead of LOGICAL and visa-versa

[Guest djt01]

That's the same as running diskmgmt.msc, yes?

Yes that

[Guest djt01]

On a 300GB Raptor and 64K cluster format you end up with about a 279.5GB partition however that can vary some depending on the controller. Also, it can vary if you format to PRIMARY instead of LOGICAL and visa-versa

I