Ideal cluster size for 1.5TB NTFS volume

[Cluent]

The average file size will be around 8 MB. I may also have a single very large file (500MB).

 

[TheSchaft]

The average file size will be around 8 MB. I may also have a single very large file (500MB).

When you format the drive, the optimal cluster size should be selected automatically, probably 4KB.

If you are offerred a choice, remember that the largest size is not always the most space efficient, although with 1.5T that is probably not a big deal.

 

[Cluent]

The average file size will be around 8 MB. I may also have a single very large file (500MB).

When you format the drive, the optimal cluster size should be selected automatically, probably 4KB.

If you are offerred a choice, remember that the largest size is not always the most space efficient, although with 1.5T that is probably not a big deal.

I know 4KB is the default size for large drives, but is that necessarily best for performance with large files?

 

[TheSchaft]

I know 4KB is the default size for large drives, but is that necessarily best for performance with large files?

The trade-offs are between speed and space, to an extent.

With the speed of modern drives, a larger cluster size will give you only marginal improvement, if any - especially with NTFS.

From a space perspective, remember that each cluster is allocated as a lump (to use a really non-technical term ). What I mean is that a file of 20 bytes will take 4K - that is the minimum allocated size.

Again, with modern drives, you will not gain a lot in efficiency with a larger size - the sectors are arranged so that a single rotation will get multiple sectors, unlike drives in the old days where you had to manually set an interlace to optimize the speed.

Bottom line - I doubt if you would see any improvement in larger clusters.

 

[Cluent]

Bottom line - I doubt if you would see any improvement in larger clusters.

Would you get a smaller master file table with a larger cluster size?

 

[TheSchaft]

Microsoft moved away from the File Allocation Table with NTFS, so I'm not sure the question applies.

Here are a couple of links that may help:

Optimizing NTFS

How NTFS Works: Local File Systems

 

[Cluent]

Microsoft moved away from the File Allocation Table with NTFS, so I'm not sure the question applies.

Right, now they call it master file table. I edited the the question to say: "Does the larger cluster size lead to a smaller master file table"?

 

[TheSchaft]

I still really don't think you will see a marked improvement with a larger cluster size, or more disk space lost to indexing tables.

You're talking about 1.5T here - that's a lot of space. I have a 1T NAS and have loaded out the entire contents of two desktops and a laptop, plus Office 2000 and Office 2007 Enterprise CDs, and haven't even made a dent in the space.

At 1,500G, your 500MB files will be lost there.

 

[Cluent]

At 1,500G, your 500MB files will be lost there.

Oops, I meant to say 500GB file, maybe even 1 TB file. Does that change things? That large file will be an archive of other files. It itself will be a virtual NTFS volume, so my worry was that the 1.5TGB would be eaten by the MTFs in the two volumes. I don't know much at all about how the MTF is sized.

 

[Cluent]

I just posed a related question here:

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-...ternal-hard-drive-used-backup.html#post365569