resize ntfs clusters without reformating

[brokenlavalamp]

hi

i found this program and i used it to resize the clusters on my ntfs drive

http://www.paragon-gmbh.com/f_fm.htm

[Xenomorph]

wow thanks!

i was looking for something like this. Partition Magic 7.1 (or is it 7.01?) doesnt support cluster resizing for NTFS...

seems funny that WinXP will convert FAT32 to 512byte NTFS when its default NTFS cluster size on formats is 4096bytes (faster than 512byte)

[fr33k]

  Quote

Originally posted by brokenlavalamp

hi

i found this program and i used it to resize the clusters on my ntfs drive

http://www.paragon-gmbh.com/f_fm.htm

thats nice, but you have to buy the program to use this feature

[Prasanth]

ok a stupid question

why you want to resize the cluster size?

[fr33k]

  Quote

Originally posted by prasanth

ok a stupid question

why you want to resize the cluster size?

I think for performance reasons

a larger cluster uses more disk space but is faster

I think

I hope I got that right :ermm:

[Prasanth]

so which cluster size is good for better perfomance

[Xahid]

  Quote

a larger cluster uses more disk space but is faster

Nah , smaller cluster is better for performance !!!

and efficient. and I think 512byte(default) is better enough.

[fr33k]

here is an article worth reading

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

[C@N'T }{1T $}{1]

  Quote

The typical cluster's size for NTFS constitutes 4 KBytes. But with the cluster of a big size, there isn't any more an opportunity of compression of separate files. So, the optimal size is 16 KBytes. The further increase is not effective. If you want to increase the performance of NTFS (though you will lose possibility of compression), make your disc formatted with the cluster's size more than 4 KBytes.

seks :) I will look into that next time I format C:

[nartac]

  Quote

Originally posted by fr33k

here is an article worth reading

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

Well said. End of argument.

[C@N'T }{1T $}{1]

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/...kc_fil_lxty.asp

And...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;EN-US;q140365

[Xenomorph]

  Quote

Originally posted by fr33k

I think for performance reasons

a larger cluster uses more disk space but is faster

I think

I hope I got that right :ermm:

its the same with FAT32 (just try changing your cluster size on FAT32 to 512bytes, and disk performance will slow to a crawl).

Windows 2000 defaulted to 512 byte for both formatting and converting. this was fine since Win2k wasnt really designed for speed.

Windows XP defaults to 4096 bytes for a format, but still 512bytes for a conversion. it goes for the larger cluster size on formats for speed. unfortunalty, MS seemed to forget to update their conversion program.

[Howe]

Actually plain FAT rules......period.

RAM size and err -- cache is the chief factor influencing ANY file system performance. IEx; in case of 64-96 MBytes both NTFS and FAT are equal. If you are using only simple applications, FAT32 is better on the PCs with lot's of memory.

Take a typical game system on NTFS is total crap and won't show speed. The main advantage is directory structure, disc size, fragmentation do not have an influence on the system performance.

FAT 32 with ton's of memory is the better choice for simple users' systems.

Use NTFS for graphics workstations, office computers with thousands of documents and moreover file-servers, NTFS shows higher performance level's....

Bottom line, HD's are the bottle-neck, buy the fastest HD with the largest cache buffer and as much RAM as possible......Done!!

[C@N'T }{1T $}{1]

  Quote

Originally posted by Xenomorph

Windows XP defaults to 4096 bytes for a format, but still 512bytes for a conversion. it goes for the larger cluster size on formats for speed. unfortunalty, MS seemed to forget to update their conversion program.

The conversion process will ONLY allow 512 due to FAT's 512 trend. It says something similar on the M$ website.