![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Cluster size for secondary drive [photos]
- Thread starter melteye
- Start date
If you are using NTFS, then it really doesn't matter, and changing the allocation unit size is not recommended. Changing the AU size is not going to magically make a slow drive fast - if you don't like what you've got now, buy a better one.
I know it's not going to 'magically' make things faster and nowhere was I complaining about my current drive speed. I find it funny when someone replies with "not recommended" on these forums...
I thought the larger cluster sizes would limit fragmentation and increase throughput (somewhat). I'm not concerned about losing disk space as the drive will have no small files.
Anyone have links to data regarding this?
I thought the larger cluster sizes would limit fragmentation and increase throughput (somewhat). I'm not concerned about losing disk space as the drive will have no small files.
Anyone have links to data regarding this?
Well, using a allocation unit size above 4096 means that NTFS file compression is no longer supported on the volume, and that DiskKeeper can no longer run on the volume. So yes, there are very sound reasons for not raising the NTFS AU size above the default of 4096.
Since the files you're working with are larger than any of the available AU sizes, they will require AUs beyond their MFT (Master File Table) entries. At this point, fragmentation is unavoidable if you delete then overwrite frequently. Schedule a disk defragmenter to run regularly if this is a concern to you, and you may want to investigate some of the more thorough third party defragmenters. If you don't mind the loss of NTFS compression, then you should gain at least some additional speed by using a larger AU size, but it won't be very much.
Another option for increasing thoughput is to use FAT32, but you will lose file system journals and other data integrity features that are part of NTFS, but if speed matters more than anything else, it's worth a shot. Windows XP will not create or format FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB though.
Since the files you're working with are larger than any of the available AU sizes, they will require AUs beyond their MFT (Master File Table) entries. At this point, fragmentation is unavoidable if you delete then overwrite frequently. Schedule a disk defragmenter to run regularly if this is a concern to you, and you may want to investigate some of the more thorough third party defragmenters. If you don't mind the loss of NTFS compression, then you should gain at least some additional speed by using a larger AU size, but it won't be very much.
Another option for increasing thoughput is to use FAT32, but you will lose file system journals and other data integrity features that are part of NTFS, but if speed matters more than anything else, it's worth a shot. Windows XP will not create or format FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB though.
Yes stick to the default. I changed cluster sizes before just to see if it would help, but found that it made no noticable difference to me, whether seat of the pants feel or benchmarking. Also like said certain disk utilities do not agree with anything other than the default size.