Cluster Size Q

ronemca · 3rd February 2003, 1:09 AM

Greetings. I've read the bulk of the postings, and I'm learning a lot. (Thanks). But...the installation headache for 16/16 XP-H troubles me. Why is a 4 kb cluster not good? (Or is it one of those issues where there may be a 1.663 nanosecond speed increase with 16/16 versus 4/16?) Just wondering.

In fact, I'm apprehensive about the whole adventure. As an 'Expert' on the XP Hardware NG, I see so many people having drive letter assignment hassles, and endless 'lost drive' hassles. AND, I'm the first to admit that I'm not an 'Expert' at everything. Far from it. (That's why I'm HERE!) I'm confident that I will eventually sort it out...but I don't want to have to spend a week doing it!

Grats - Ron

chainbolt · 3rd February 2003, 3:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ronemca
Greetings. I've read the bulk of the postings, and I'm learning a lot. (Thanks). But...the installation headache for 16/16 XP-H troubles me. Why is a 4 kb cluster not good? (Or is it one of those issues where there may be a 1.663 nanosecond speed increase with 16/16 versus 4/16?) Just wondering.

In fact, I'm apprehensive about the whole adventure. As an 'Expert' on the XP Hardware NG, I see so many people having drive letter assignment hassles, and endless 'lost drive' hassles. AND, I'm the first to admit that I'm not an 'Expert' at everything. Far from it. (That's why I'm HERE!) I'm confident that I will eventually sort it out...but I don't want to have to spend a week doing it!

Grats - Ron

4K is better than 16 K, you save space. 4K is also faster than 16 k, that is why Microsoft has set 4K as default.

16K/16K is refrering to the array block size and the file cluster size for a RAID 0 array. That's a different story. And it's not a "law." It is just so that in 1000 of test runs with all kind of benchmarks, disks, and RAID controllers this combination came out best for most ppl and usual jobs. It's also clear (as mentioned) in RAID manuals that when working with large files (video editing e.g.) you need a bigger block size than 16K for RAID 0.

ronemca · 3rd February 2003, 4:14 AM

Thanks for the reply. I understand the reference to 16/16. Based upon the posts here at OCAU, I have chosen to set it up that way...but the number of steps to achieve this troubles me. As I said, I'm sure that I'll get it eventually, but surely there is a better way! By "better" I mean less troublesome. For instance, after booting up and configuring the array in the RR card BIOS to a block 16, what if I allow XP to format the 2 drives to a 4 kb cluster? Won't everything still work? And assuming it DOES work, will I even notice the difference between a 4 kb cluster and a 16? Again, I'm just curious. I'm thinking that changing to a RAID 0 (from a single disk) is going to warp up the system anyway...and if it runs at 0.003% slower than it would if I set 16/16...well so what? Is this reasonable thinking? Or will I run into problems? Thanks.

ronemca · 3rd February 2003, 4:57 PM

Oh, man. Look what I found here: http://www.hafodty.demon.co.uk/w2kinst_step1.htm "...One big big gottcha to be aware of though: If you use a cluster size larger than 4kb and format as NTFS, you will not be able to defragment your hard disks."

Egad! This is the first I've heard of THIS!! Are they right?

stalin · 5th February 2003, 4:44 PM

yes they are right.

I have a 160GB RAID 1+0 partion that has 64KB clusters (stores files around the 2GB mark). After i filled it right up i noticed i cant defrag... oh well

Disk Keeper can prolly defrag it though,

D F · 5th February 2003, 5:25 PM

There is a disk wizard starter edition that boots off a floppy, allows formatting and paritioning of NTFS and FAT filesystems. The windows version is pretty good, it allows you to choose cluster size so I would assume it would be the same for the floppy version.
http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/...s/discwiz.html

3rd February 2003, 1:09 AM	#1
ronemca Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 9	Cluster Size Q Greetings. I've read the bulk of the postings, and I'm learning a lot. (Thanks). But...the installation headache for 16/16 XP-H troubles me. Why is a 4 kb cluster not good? (Or is it one of those issues where there may be a 1.663 nanosecond speed increase with 16/16 versus 4/16?) Just wondering. In fact, I'm apprehensive about the whole adventure. As an 'Expert' on the XP Hardware NG, I see so many people having drive letter assignment hassles, and endless 'lost drive' hassles. AND, I'm the first to admit that I'm not an 'Expert' at everything. Far from it. (That's why I'm HERE!) I'm confident that I will eventually sort it out...but I don't want to have to spend a week doing it! Grats - Ron

3rd February 2003, 4:57 PM	#4
ronemca Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 9	Oh, man. Look what I found here: http://www.hafodty.demon.co.uk/w2kinst_step1.htm "...One big big gottcha to be aware of though: If you use a cluster size larger than 4kb and format as NTFS, you will not be able to defragment your hard disks." Egad! This is the first I've heard of THIS!! Are they right? Last edited by ronemca; 3rd February 2003 at 4:59 PM.

3rd February 2003, 4:14 AM	#3
ronemca Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 9	Thanks for the reply. I understand the reference to 16/16. Based upon the posts here at OCAU, I have chosen to set it up that way...but the number of steps to achieve this troubles me. As I said, I'm sure that I'll get it eventually, but surely there is a better way! By "better" I mean less troublesome. For instance, after booting up and configuring the array in the RR card BIOS to a block 16, what if I allow XP to format the 2 drives to a 4 kb cluster? Won't everything still work? And assuming it DOES work, will I even notice the difference between a 4 kb cluster and a 16? Again, I'm just curious. I'm thinking that changing to a RAID 0 (from a single disk) is going to warp up the system anyway...and if it runs at 0.003% slower than it would if I set 16/16...well so what? Is this reasonable thinking? Or will I run into problems? Thanks.

5th February 2003, 4:44 PM	#5
stalin (Taking a Break) Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the move Posts: 4,584	yes they are right. I have a 160GB RAID 1+0 partion that has 64KB clusters (stores files around the 2GB mark). After i filled it right up i noticed i cant defrag... oh well Disk Keeper can prolly defrag it though,

5th February 2003, 5:25 PM	#6
D F Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,308	There is a disk wizard starter edition that boots off a floppy, allows formatting and paritioning of NTFS and FAT filesystems. The windows version is pretty good, it allows you to choose cluster size so I would assume it would be the same for the floppy version. http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/...s/discwiz.html