NTFS and Cluster Sizes

[Ian MacGregor]

Opus and others,
Here's my setup:

Maxtor 40gb-Dual boot win2k(audio) and winxp(internet, school, etc.) I'm using win2k for audio cause my soundcard won't work with xp.

WD 60gb-Audio files. Here lies my question. When formatting this drive for the first time using winxp, I selected NTFS and it asked me what cluster size I wanted. All the way up to 64k. I chose 64k, is this what I should have done? I was thinking this because the audio files are big, and the less clusters for the same audio files is good. Right??

Anyway, now's the time to go back and fix it if this is wrong.

Thanks in advance,
Ian

 

[Opus2000]

Soundcard doesn't work with XP.....ewwww!! lol
Sorry to hear that...what card is it? TIme for them to get their act together I'd say!!
Anyhue, I don't see a reason why that would be bad. I always left it at the default cluster size as NTFS is good as it is in default mode. I'll poke around to see what other folks say about it and let you know...otherwise try it out and let us know...someone has to be the guinea pig!!!
Cheers
Opus

 

[Ian MacGregor]

Opus,
The soundcard is a Gadget Labs 824 (out of business...) The card is ok, I just don't have the cash to really upgrade to something better. I'll post results when the computer is done. Is there a set way to compare performance specs??

 

[BrockStapper]

This is just rumor but I have heard that smaller cluster sizes are better. I would be interested in learning the facts though... Looking forward to more information on this one...

 

[BrockStapper]

Come on Opus! You're DAW Man! What's the word bird? I think I got the smaller cluster information from a TASCAM article. As I have progressed through the learning curve I have noticed some bad (outdated anyway) information in this same article so do not know if this would be part of that. I think the basic premise for smaller cluster sizes was that reading and writing were theoretically quicker and buffers would not be bogged down. As I have said before, disk I/O has never been a problem for me as I always have ran out of CPU way before the disk I/O was even at 20%.
I still would like some informed information on this one, though...
Sooooo.... back to the top with ya you scurvy nave...

 

[Opus2000]

Ummm...errr...uggg...sorry, been quite involved with other things at the present moment and have not had time to research into that. If Daniel, former Tascam employee(in which I have not heard from in a while...hmmmm :roll: ) researched the hell out the web for the information he found so I would not say that it is misinformation in any way on his doc on optimizing the computer.
Now if you were referring to my post just recently on the Tascam forums, why yes, now there was some SERIOUSLY BAD INFORMATION that I had to correct!!!
I will try and look into this issue but it will not be this weekend.
Opus

 

[BrockStapper]

nope, not the forums...
ahhh, found it. and, of course, it is stating exactly the opposite from what I remembered...

The World of PC Recording
By Dave Casey, TASCAM Product Specialist

Window’s Cluster Sizes
When you perform a standard FAT 32 partitioning of a drive, it will set up the directory with 4K clusters. Using a program like Partition Magic will allow you to re-build the cluster sizes into larger 32K chunks without losing data already on the drive. What this means in basic terms is, Windows will process information from the drive in larger portions. This translates into an increased amount of data that can be written to/from the drive with less effort from your system. Compare this adjustment to filling and emptying a 3 gallon bucket 1 ounce at a time instead of 12 ounces at a time.

Ok, it's me again,
so this would make sense for ntfs as well?