Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Windows software RAID
Stoic Joker:
Cluster size has to do with formatting, not with dynamic disk partitions, really. Default cluster size is based on partition size though, -f0dder (December 17, 2008, 05:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
I thought that went out the window when LBA showed up?
and I imagine dynamic disks are often used for huge partitions, so it would make sense having large cluster sizes there.
--- End quote ---
No actually they're for many small ones. With DD you're not limited to only 4 primary partitions (or the 3+extended with logical madness). It was designed to make segregating data easier so the stuff that constantly fragments can be isolated from the more static data, while allowing space to be reallocated with out complication. Resizing, merging, etc. can be done without reboots or 3rd party software with DD volumes...and you can create a virtually unlimited number of "partitions" (volumes) using folder mount points if you run out of (26...) drive letters. ...Not saying it's wise, just saying that's what it's for.
16kb clusters isn't that bad anyway, if you're doing a stripe (or just huge partitions) you really ought to have relatively large files and not a crapload of smaller ones :)
--- End quote ---
16KB is an atrocity no matter how you slice it. I've got a 500GB partition I use for backup storage on my server and it still gives only a 4KB size on disk for the hello file test.
...on 2nd thought, I may have been thinking about the oformat utility prep which was part of the early Win2k Fat to NTFS conversion process on the 4-16 point. ...or maybe it was FAT32 that did that *shrug* I'm over due for a vacation.
f0dder:
Cluster size has to do with formatting, not with dynamic disk partitions, really. Default cluster size is based on partition size though, -f0dder (December 17, 2008, 05:36 PM)
--- End quote ---
I thought that went out the window when LBA showed up?-Stoic Joker (December 17, 2008, 10:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
I think you're thinking of Cylinder/Head/Sector mapping - cluster size has to do with the filesystem, no the disk addressing method.
and you can create a virtually unlimited number of "partitions" (volumes) using folder mount points if you run out of (26...) drive letters. ...Not saying it's wise, just saying that's what it's for.-Stoic Joker (December 17, 2008, 10:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
You can use mount points with classical partitions (BASIC disk) as well :)
16KB is an atrocity no matter how you slice it. I've got a 500GB partition I use for backup storage on my server and it still gives only a 4KB size on disk for the hello file test.-Stoic Joker (December 17, 2008, 10:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't see 16kb clusters as bad if you deal mainly with large files. Reduces fragmentation, and possibly means less filesystem metadata overhead for huge files as well (though I have to look at how NTFS uses extents to be sure).
...on 2nd thought, I may have been thinking about the oformat utility prep which was part of the early Win2k Fat to NTFS conversion process on the 4-16 point. ...or maybe it was FAT32 that did that *shrug* I'm over due for a vacation.
-Stoic Joker (December 17, 2008, 10:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
Sounds likely that using convert.exe to go from FAT32 to NTFS could leave you with large cluster sizes - ie. FAT32 quickly requires large cluster sizes for large drives, and convert only converts the FS metadata, it doesn't mess with cluster size.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version