Cluster Size For NTFS

[divx2vcd]

Hi,

I have just brought new Seagate 80gb 7200.2 rpm HDD.

Problem is that while partitioning I really confused ? Is that
I use myPC for video editing purpose I have Canopus Strom SE Installed.

As you now that at DV file of 1hour is about 13GB. I have created 2 partition of 28GB and rest free space to 3rd Partition.

There one thing Cluster Size If I go for default option of 512 per cluster or 4k Cluster Size what would you suggest of what kind of Cluster
Size is most suitable for NTFS to do Video Editing Tasks.
Please Help Me. I Can Change My Partition Size As Per Your Suggestions.

Regards
Apurv.

[pbhalerao]

In my opinion, you should not be worried too much on the cluster size, since your primary objective is capturing DV. Cluster size is something to be worried about in case Win9x/FAT32 file systems. As you must be aware that a file occupies the space in multiples of the cluster size, i.e., if the cluster size is 4K, then a file of 10K will occupy 12K of HDD space. This is something to be bothered about in FAT32 systems, where the cluster size is as large as 16K or more, as a large number of small files will occupy large disk space. DV files being very big, are not a problem, that way.

Is this new disk going to be your master disk? Or will it be a slave to an already existing disk. If the latter, then what I would rather recommend is to keep the entire disk as a single partition. In this case your default cluster size will be 4K. Having your OS and programs on your master disk and captured DV on the slave disk ensures best performance.

If this new disk is going to be the master disk then a 10GB primary partition is enough for OS and programs and you may leave a larger portion for your DV stuff.

Regards,

[divx2vcd]

Thanks Pbhalerao,

Thanks for taking time to answer my querry.

My new 80GB HDD is Mainly for DV Recording and editing. It is on Secondry Master.

I have an already installed 40GB HDD as Primary Master having OS on that WinXp & Winme.

On Primary Slave I have My Asus CD-ROM and on Secondry Slave Samsung CD-R/W Installed.

Basic Idea For Asking the Question Is the 4K is Optimised Setting or default 512byte is Optimised Settings which will have Greater Performance.

Regards
Apurv.

[sterno]

For video work you'll probably be dealing with large files on large partitions, so you should use 4k clusters. The main reason to use any smaller size is if you're dealing with a large number of very small files, or if you're using small partitions (under 2GB).

[Bradskey]

On older FAT file systems larger clusters allowed for larger formatted volumes, but this doesn't really apply with NTFS given that it supports volumes FAR larger than current drive technologies. But drives are getting so big that cluster size/cluster waste doesn't really matter that much (IMHO, but some people might still care) even for small files. 4K would seem best to me working with very large files like video.

[sterno]

Oh yeah, since you specifically asked about performance.... Larger cluster sizes will usually be slightly faster than smaller ones, but for a desktop the difference usually won't be meaningful. 4k is also the highest you should go on a desktop most of the time.

[The village idiot]

Ya know.... I've always been wondering the same thing. Thanks for the explainations!

[divx2vcd]

Thanks to all.

(IMHO, but some people might still care)

After Posting this question on this forum I had visited many websites,
including microsoft help on winxp. But didnot seem any satisfactory
answer.

One thing if you say large cluster size take more space on HDD then
Cluster size more than 4k is advisable or not, like 16k seems also good as in DV editing we are dealing with really huge files and if CLUSTER size is more than in peak rotation of HDD can serve much good transfer rate
while rendering effects.

What do you think ?

Regards
Apurv.

[D_Knife]

Go for 32K cluster size on a video capture volume if you can.
Every cluster written requires a write to the MFT (Master File Table)
Setting 32K reduces the writes to half of the 16K clusters and 8 times for 4K clusters.

It won't make a HUGE difference but it is more suitable than smaller cluster sizes.

Mind you it makes the volume very wasteful for other files - but then you should not be mixing files anyway.

[Bradskey]

Go for 32K cluster size on a video capture volume if you can.
Every cluster written requires a write to the MFT (Master File Table)
Setting 32K reduces the writes to half of the 16K clusters and 8 times for 4K clusters.

It won't make a HUGE difference but it is more suitable than smaller cluster sizes.

Mind you it makes the volume very wasteful for other files - but then you should not be mixing files anyway.

Agreed. Drive performance won't change a whole lot, other than number of file table entries. Ultimately everything is written at the sector level, which is generally a fixed 512 bytes, and all kinds of caching and block transfer operations go on in the background that you never see. 32K clusters were the norm back in the Win95a days when you would format a 2GB partition with FAT16. I think the percentage cluster waste on a normal system volume formatted like that was up to 30%, but on a volume with mostly very large files the wasted space is totally insignificant.

[divx2vcd]

Haaa. Same Question Asked.

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=576171


Try to give some serious answers.

Is you ever thought there are OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR NETORKING.
Is there OPERATING SYSTEM MEANT FOR VIDEO-EDITING.

Think

Regards
Apurv.

[divx2vcd]

ANY THOUGHT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE

[gmatov]

I would suggest you not worry about cluster size. With FAT 32, the larger the drive the larger the clusters. It is simply mathematical. And, really, not even true. It is not a 32 bit system, only, I think, 28 of the 32 bits are used as addresses. Perhaps it is 24, I really do not want to go through old magazines, but, if you take 24 or 28 bits, and divide the HDD capacity by that, you may come up with 32 KB clusters. I know the size was pretty big on my 160, but do not recall, as it really doesn't matter. The drive will write 4k clusters, or 32 k clusterts at the same speed, lost time being the writing to the MBRs, or the FATs. The data has to be catalogued somewhere, so that you can retrieve it, and, once upon a time, it was felt that small clusters gave a hit to a machine.

[dcsos]

4k is also the highest you should go on a desktop most of the time.

STERNO is correct

don't use 512-
> bytes, the smallest, slowest cluster size NTFS allows. The optimum
> size is 4K clusters.

[sterno]

Is you ever thought there are OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR NETORKING.
Is there OPERATING SYSTEM MEANT FOR VIDEO-EDITING.

BeOS was originally aimed largely at multimedia work, but Be, Inc., went under. It's a shame, the pre-releases of BeOS showed good promise. Stable and very fast. It also had a UNIX compatibility layer, so it had access to the huge library of existing free UNIX/Linux software just like Mac OS X does now.

[The village idiot]

Is you ever thought there are OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR NETORKING.
Is there OPERATING SYSTEM MEANT FOR VIDEO-EDITING.

BeOS was originally aimed largely at multimedia work, but Be, Inc., went under. It's a shame, the pre-releases of BeOS showed good promise. Stable and very fast. It also had a UNIX compatibility layer, so it had access to the huge library of existing free UNIX/Linux software just like Mac OS X does now.

I have to agree with you. I actually bought a copy of v.5 professional, which allowed multiple processors. Was pretty nice but I never did too much with it, and now it is dead (sort of).

[snowmoon]

Just a FYI...

Under XP, cluster sizes over 4k must be done from the command line. use format /? to get the options.

[divx2vcd]

Thanks To All.


Some More Are Needed
They All Are Welcome.

Regards
Apurv.

[divx2vcd]

Still Want Some More ? Info Please Help

[thayne]

Just a FYI...

Under XP, cluster sizes over 4k must be done from the command line. use format /? to get the options.

Or through disk manager. I set my main video drive to 64k clusters.

[DeadLamb]

Or will it be a slave to an already existing disk. If the latter, then what I would rather recommend is to keep the entire disk as a single partition.

yeah most if not all of my tech buddies who work in the cpu world etc don't even bother to partiton drives much anymore.. I'm sure most of it is a lazy factor being jumping and hunting for data over muti drives can get to be a pain.. I have 4 80 gig drives in my system now.. all just plopped in as formated as one big drive.. edit: errr well 4 big drives.. that one drive line made it sound like a raid set up..

Makes it ez for some things when you start to have dirs' filled up with 50 some odd gigs of whatever and you are not going from drive to drive..

Just picked up a 160gig drive today.. Will just plop that in as one big drive too.. (unless for some reason I can't).. I know the idea behind partitions and it's not a bad idea but in the end the idea of wasting some space due to cluster this and that is not too big of a deal when like this 160gig 7200 WD was $100 bucks..

[divx2vcd]

Is you ever thought there are OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR NETORKING.
Is there OPERATING SYSTEM MEANT FOR VIDEO-EDITING.

[pbhalerao]

Is you ever thought there are OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR NETORKING.
Is there OPERATING SYSTEM MEANT FOR VIDEO-EDITING.

No. There is no such thing as yet. Perhaps in the near future as video editing become more and more popular. The OS's of today are still focussed on the business user.

But if there is any firendly OS you want, you can just call tgpo.

BTW, his (tgpo's) signature should read:

UNIX for stability, Macintosh for creativity, Windows for morons