Whirlpool

What you guys think is a good size to choose when formatting a Hard Disk? :P

You mean cluster size? The largest size is faster, but leaves you with less overall space, smaller saves you space at the cost of some disk performance. I prefer larger, it's up to you.

4096

if you have a spare HDD, have seperate cluster sizes. One small and one big for your large files

well its a 500 gig, mainly for storage.. whats a good compromise between speed and size? 4096?

For storage, speed of (good) computers, cluster size doesn't make much of a difference really. So choose the smaller size if you wanna get more space (if you have small files on it of course)

I'd go more into this but Im 3 minutes late from leaving for a friends wedding, so.. IM GONE!

well i went for 8k :p

Not sure if it was better than 4k but i think so...

Aquilius writes...

well its a 500 gig, mainly for storage

Depends what you're storing :)

If it's media files of a certain size - i.e. MP3's and AVI's, and the like, then a larger cluster size (like 32k) will still result in little wasted slack space. If you're storing shortcuts, news articles or maildirs, then 4096 is the go.

port writes...

Depends what you're storing :)

If it's media files of a certain size - i.e. MP3's and AVI's, and the like, then a larger cluster size (like 32k) will still result in little wasted slack space. If you're storing shortcuts, news articles or maildirs, then 4096 is the go.

75% videos and MP3's, 20% games, 5% doc files and the like.

hmmmm what about a 500GB full of TV shows (ie 350MB each)

and does it REALLY make that much of a difference to speed? I always keep my cluster size to 512bytes to stop any slack space.

Aquilius writes...

75% videos and MP3's, 20% games, 5% doc files and the like.

I'd say that 8k is a sensible compromise, then.

membreya writes...

and does it REALLY make that much of a difference to speed? I always keep my cluster size to 512bytes to stop any slack space.

Less clusters to record → less entries in the appropriate table → less work to do.

You'll always have slack space, but a maximum wasted space of 32k in a 1-2G file isn't a significant trade-off worth worrying about, IMO. OTOH, if every file was 4-20k, then it would be an issue, as the amount of wasted space would be significant.

Interestingly enough, the previous advice (large cluster size) sounds good if you are only storing huge files on the target partition.

Can't remember where I read it now, but apparently when Windows talks to pagefile.sys, it always does so in 4K units. (default NTFS cluster size) Not an issue if you are not "swapping" of course.

And also not really relevant unless you are running a RAID setup.
Then, cluster size selection is a different ballgame altogether.
Just thought I would throw that into the mix.

javadog writes...

Can't remember where I read it now, but apparently when Windows talks to pagefile.sys, it always does so in 4K units. (default NTFS cluster size) Not an issue if you are not "swapping" of course.


That would only be an issue if it was the system drive right? and it isn't in my case.

Well I am just assuming now that you are running a seperate drive for the media files. (even though you don't explicitly state that)
Please forgive me if I missed something, tired :\

Yes, you are correct. If it's not the system drive, (or more correctly not where you have decided to place pagefile.sys) it won't be an issue.

Didn't mean to confuse things.

The 4k default cluster size will normally minimise the wasted space when saving files, and normally is a good rule to follow. But on a drive with many large files - such as for video editing, where files are commonly 20-80MB - having larger clusters will minimise the read time as well as reducing fragmentation. Check out Microsoft for a number of articles on this subject, and the following: www.windowsdevcenter.com.../NTFS_Hacks.html

5. Plan Your Cluster Size
The default cluster size on NTFS volumes is 4K, which is fine if your files are typically small and generally remain the same size. But if your files are generally much larger or tend to grow over time as applications modify them, try increasing the cluster size on your drives to 16K or even 32K to compensate. That will reduce the amount of space you are wasting on your drives and will allow files to open slightly faster.

Two caveats, though:
* If you want to compress older files to save disk space using NTFS compression, you have to leave the cluster size at 4K.
* The smaller your files (compared with the cluster size), the more fragmented your volume will tend to become over time.

The second caveat means that you should also ...

6. Defragment Regularly
Fragmented drives increase the time it takes for applications to open, close, create, or delete files. A good practice is to use Windows XP's Disk Defragmenter tool to defrag your drive at least once a week, especially if you run applications that frequently modify files and you have a lot of files on your drives. If you like, you can use the Scheduled Task Wizard to automate this process. See How to Automate Disk Defragmenter Using Task Scheduler Tool in Windows XP in the Microsoft Knowledge Base for instructions.

I have a similar question. Just picked up a 2nd Raptor, so one for O/S and one for Games. Got a separate 320GB for storage/backups, etc. (fyi, not gonna raid them; after parallel operations, plus I can't be bothered)

Well striped or not, the O/S and Games are never gonna get anywhere near filled for a long time, so wasting is space is not too big an issue. Does that mean I should go the bigger block size for improved performance? From the info here and from what I've learnt, I should, but what I'm checking for here are any other hidden downsides from bigger blocks besides space.

hmm, never mind; the biggest Windows will let me choose is 4K anyway =P