This website uses cookies. By clicking Accept, you consent to the use of cookies. Click Here to learn more about how we use cookies.
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Options
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
cluster size other that 4KB on Intel SSD
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-11-2010 07:31 AM
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} -->
Most program and data files are much larger than they were when 4KB became the default value for cluster size.
I would like to know whether there is any inconvenience (other than wasting some space) in having 64KB clusters.
And what performance improvements could I expect while loading today's programs and data files.
The information found on the Internet is rather conflicting.
But Intel certainly has solid measured results.
10 REPLIES 10
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-15-2010 08:47 AM
I read a Intel pdf about cluster size ,it seams that the reason for the smaller size is for higher IOPS, see pdf , download.intel.com/it/Solid_State_drives_in Enterprize.pdf .
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-15-2010 09:35 AM
The referenced pdf reports of tests with workloads of various "block" sizes, but it does not compare various "cluster" sizes in e.g. NTFS.
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-15-2010 12:15 PM
I think after reading the pdf , the jist of it is do you want high IOPS use 4kb , If you are doing video editing use 64kb , It a choice over speed or file size.
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-16-2010 03:27 PM
There is a section (in the pdf link below) on how block sizes can influence performance, which basically confers with what the white paper and Robert are saying.
Options
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
08-22-2010 11:40 AM
The motivation for my original question is that I want to maximize the responsiveness of my W7 laptop.
So I think I have to optimize it for large program and data files being loaded, small ones will load quickly anyway.
I therefore generated my data and backup partitions to NTFS with 64KB clusters (unit=64k in diskpart parlance).
Despite many efforts, I did not succeed in changing the system partition's cluster size to anything greater than 4KB, neither before installation (diskpart), nor after installation (Partition Wizard Pro) which provides a "change cluster size" function.
The Partition Wizard Pro's error message indicated that my system contains compressed files, files which can only be held in 4KB clusters.
When I will do the next clean install, I will create a separate partition for the program files, partition which I can create with 64KB clusters.
Thank you for informing me about the alignment issue.
It turned out that my boot + system partition was not correctly aligned, even though I had used the diskpart align=1024 parameter.
I finally succeded by omitting the align= parameter, in other words, W7 does align properly without any help from the user.
Related Content
