In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.

Please excuse me if this subject has been discussed before, but I've
looked everywhere, and there are many thoughts about this. I'm just
looking for a consensus.

Catdaddy wrote in message
...
In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.

Please excuse me if this subject has been discussed before, but I've
looked everywhere, and there are many thoughts about this. I'm just
looking for a consensus.

What I do is format my audio drives with NTFS and use the largest cluster
size available. ( usually 64K. I think you might of misinterpreted the
'512K' number, I've never seen that. I believe that WinXP defaults to 4K )

Here is a forum with some people discussing the options :
http://www.short-media.com/forum/arc...php/t-679.html

Best of luck!

John L Rice

John L Rice wrote:

Catdaddy wrote in message
...

In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.

Please excuse me if this subject has been discussed before, but I've
looked everywhere, and there are many thoughts about this. I'm just
looking for a consensus.

What I do is format my audio drives with NTFS and use the largest cluster
size available. ( usually 64K. I think you might of misinterpreted the
'512K' number, I've never seen that. I believe that WinXP defaults to 4K )

I am by no means an expert on Microsoft technology (my attitude is
that when it comes to Microsoft, ignorance is bliss), but the
information I've dug up just now indicates the NTFS is an extent-based
filesystem. Which means that the cluster size is mostly a moot
point, because in most cases the filesystem should be able notice
that you are writing out a big bunch of sequential data to a file,
so it should be able to, in effect, combine several contiguous
clusters together into one big continuous area. Or at least that
is what extent-based filesystem are supposed to be able to do.

This does, however, rely on the OS realizing that you're writing a
big stream of continuous data out to a file and figuring out that
it can make this optimization.

- Logan

Catdaddy wrote:

In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.

For FAT16 and FAT32 file systems use the largest cluster size
available. On PCs running XP, that means 64 KB clusters. Win98
machines often have problems reading anything larger than 8 KB clusters
so that might be your limit on those machines.

On PDAs running Windows Mobile (Pocket PC 2002/2003), Softwinter's
Storage Tools lets you format flash memory (SD and CF cards),
MicroDrives and hard drives to as large as 64 KB clusters. That's what
we recommend for 24/96 recording.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

As clusters are (theoretically) physically contiguous, it would seem to make
sense to use the largest cluster size available, as this would minimize the
number of times the system has to locate a free cluster, and the HD's head to
move to it.

Given that the larger, better hard drives have a fairly large buffer, there may
be no practical difference.

Catdaddy wrote in message

In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.

The default is 512 bytes, not 512 K. It's tiny, but frankly it does not
seem to cause many problems on modern machines. It may have been more of an
issue on old machines with small CPUs.

Arny,
Thanks for clearing up that bit of confusion for me!!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
Catdaddy wrote in message

In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.

The default is 512 bytes, not 512 K. It's tiny, but frankly it does not
seem to cause many problems on modern machines. It may have been more of
an
issue on old machines with small CPUs.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Catdaddy wrote in message


In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.


The default is 512 bytes, not 512 K. It's tiny, but frankly it does not
seem to cause many problems on modern machines. It may have been more of an
issue on old machines with small CPUs.


I'm pretty sure the 512 bytes you're thinking of is the sector size on the drive media itself. This is the default for all but a few RAID setups and the only value most OS's will recognize.

The cluster size ranges from 4k to 64k on windows filesystems, with 128k possible on drives using using 1024 byte sectors.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Catdaddy wrote in message


In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting (or
as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard drive. I
have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default of 512K.


The default is 512 bytes, not 512 K. It's tiny, but frankly it does not
seem to cause many problems on modern machines. It may have been more of an
issue on old machines with small CPUs.


I'm pretty sure the 512 bytes you're thinking of is the sector size on the drive media itself. This is the default for all but a few RAID setups and the only value most OS's will recognize.

The cluster size ranges from 4k to 64k on windows filesystems, with 128k possible on drives using using 1024 byte sectors.

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
Catdaddy wrote in message


In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting
(or as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard
drive. I have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default
of 512K.


The default is 512 bytes, not 512 K. It's tiny, but frankly it does
not seem to cause many problems on modern machines. It may have been
more of an issue on old machines with small CPUs.


I'm pretty sure the 512 bytes you're thinking of is the sector size
on the drive media itself.

This is also true.

This is the default for all but a few
RAID setups and the only value most OS's will recognize.

MS says that the default NTFS cluster size for small partitions (512 MB or
less) is one sector - 512 bytes:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314878

"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
Catdaddy wrote in message


In this group's opinion, what is the optimum cluster size setting
(or as XP calls it, allocation unit size) when formatting a hard
drive. I have seen 32K, 64K, and some say leave it at the default
of 512K.


The default is 512 bytes, not 512 K. It's tiny, but frankly it does
not seem to cause many problems on modern machines. It may have been
more of an issue on old machines with small CPUs.


I'm pretty sure the 512 bytes you're thinking of is the sector size
on the drive media itself.

This is also true.

This is the default for all but a few
RAID setups and the only value most OS's will recognize.

MS says that the default NTFS cluster size for small partitions (512 MB or
less) is one sector - 512 bytes:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314878

Arny Krueger wrote:

MS says that the default NTFS cluster size for small partitions (512 MB or
less) is one sector - 512 bytes:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314878

And formatting tools will allow you to format with 512 byte clusters if
you so wish. That's not too efficient if you're trying to read or writing
lots of data continuously.



--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

Arny Krueger wrote:

MS says that the default NTFS cluster size for small partitions (512 MB or
less) is one sector - 512 bytes:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314878

And formatting tools will allow you to format with 512 byte clusters if
you so wish. That's not too efficient if you're trying to read or writing
lots of data continuously.



--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
MS says that the default NTFS cluster size for small partitions (512 MB or
less) is one sector - 512 bytes:

But who in hell would use a 512 MB partition in this day and age? Especially
with NTFS!!!!!!!!!!

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
MS says that the default NTFS cluster size for small partitions (512 MB or
less) is one sector - 512 bytes:

But who in hell would use a 512 MB partition in this day and age? Especially
with NTFS!!!!!!!!!!

TonyP.

If you had a zillion very small files, 512 bytes might be
a good idea from the standpoint of space utilization.

The (very obvious) rule is that the larger the cluster size is with respect to
the average file size, the more space you waste.

There's another reason for using large clusters. As the sectors within them are
usually contiguous, your chance of recovering a deleted or corrupt file is
improved.

If you had a zillion very small files, 512 bytes might be
a good idea from the standpoint of space utilization.

The (very obvious) rule is that the larger the cluster size is with respect to
the average file size, the more space you waste.

There's another reason for using large clusters. As the sectors within them are
usually contiguous, your chance of recovering a deleted or corrupt file is
improved.

Thanks, guys for the info. It seems like the larger the cluster for
large audio files, the better.

Thanks again!!

Thanks, guys for the info. It seems like the larger the cluster for
large audio files, the better.

Thanks again!!