FAT32 to NTFS cluster size query

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jock McSquiggle
  • Start date Start date
J

Jock McSquiggle

My hard disc (15Gb) is FAT32 and I am preparing to convert this to NTFS. I've
read as many of the articles via the links provided on this forum on the
'conversion' process and the fact that NTFS requires cluster sizes of 4Kb. My
assumption is that my current cluster size on FAT32 would be 512 bytes and
would need to be changed to 4Kb prior to conversion. I am using Paragon
Partition Manager 8.5 to change the cluster size but when I run it is tells
me that my cluster size is already 8Kb !!! (not the 512 bytes I was
expecting). My question therefore is - do I still need to change this from 8
to 4Kb prior to conversion or should it be left at 8Kb??
Answers and any other tips or suggestions would be welcome.
 
The cluster size on a fat32 partition is determined by the size of the
partition--8 kb is correct for a 15 gb partition (see below). You don't
need to do anything to the cluster size--it will be changed to 4 kb during
the conversion process. While a conversion works flawlessly about 99% of
the time, be sure to back up any valuable data first in case you are unlucky
and have problems.

.. Partition Size Cluster Size
Fat 32
512 MB - 8191 MB 4K
8192 MB - 16383 MB 8K
16384 MB - 32767 MB 16K
Larger than 32768 MB 32K
 
My hard disc (15Gb) is FAT32 and I am preparing to convert this to NTFS. I've
read as many of the articles via the links provided on this forum on the
'conversion' process and the fact that NTFS requires cluster sizes of 4Kb. My
assumption is that my current cluster size on FAT32 would be 512 bytes
Click to expand...


No, not correct. See below.

and
would need to be changed to 4Kb prior to conversion.
Click to expand...


Also not correct.

I am using Paragon
Partition Manager 8.5 to change the cluster size but when I run it is tells
me that my cluster size is already 8Kb !!! (not the 512 bytes I was
expecting).
Click to expand...


The default FAT32 cluster size is determined by the size of the
partition. Partitions between 8GB and 16GB (which yours falls into)
have an 8KB cluster size.

My question therefore is - do I still need to change this from 8
to 4Kb prior to conversion or should it be left at 8Kb??
Answers and any other tips or suggestions would be welcome.
Click to expand...



No, do not attempt to change the cluster size. What you need to do
before conversion is to *realign* the partition on a 4K boundary.
Failure to do this will probably result in your getting 512-byte
clusters, rather than the normal 4K ones, and that will be accompanied
by a performance hit. Read here for more information:
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm
 
No, do not attempt to change the cluster size. What you need to do
before conversion is to *realign* the partition on a 4K boundary.
Failure to do this will probably result in your getting 512-byte
clusters, rather than the normal 4K ones, and that will be accompanied
by a performance hit. Read here for more information:
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm
Click to expand...

I was about to start a new thread on this issue when I realised that a
very similar question was asked the other day.

What's more, when I tried to research the issue earlier today I did in
fact come across the above link, but I'm still not quite clear whether I
actually have to realign or not.

My situation is this:

I have a relatively new Acer laptop running XP with two 50 GB disks that
are formatted as FAT32 for some mysterious reason, as I only just
discovered.

I'm not sure whether I can simply go ahead and convert the disks to NTFS
as described here
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx>

(see instructions on the right under "Converting to NTFS"), or whether I
should do the realignment as described in the above link.
 
Herbert said:
I was about to start a new thread on this issue when I realised that a
very similar question was asked the other day.

What's more, when I tried to research the issue earlier today I did in
fact come across the above link, but I'm still not quite clear whether I
actually have to realign or not.

My situation is this:

I have a relatively new Acer laptop running XP with two 50 GB disks that
are formatted as FAT32 for some mysterious reason, as I only just
discovered.

I'm not sure whether I can simply go ahead and convert the disks to NTFS
as described here
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx>

(see instructions on the right under "Converting to NTFS"), or whether I
should do the realignment as described in the above link.
Click to expand...

It would be safer to align the partitions on 4K boundaries, if you do
the convert without making sure that the partitions are aligned and if
you end up with 512 byte clusters the changes will not be reversible,
the only way out will be to format the drive. You really don't want 512
byte clusters!

John
 
I was about to start a new thread on this issue when I realised that a
very similar question was asked the other day.

What's more, when I tried to research the issue earlier today I did in
fact come across the above link, but I'm still not quite clear whether I
actually have to realign or not.

My situation is this:

I have a relatively new Acer laptop running XP with two 50 GB disks that
are formatted as FAT32 for some mysterious reason, as I only just
discovered.

I'm not sure whether I can simply go ahead and convert the disks to NTFS
as described here
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx>

(see instructions on the right under "Converting to NTFS"), or whether I
should do the realignment as described in the above link.
Click to expand...


Realigning is the safe thing to do. It ensures that you will not end
up with 512-byte clusters.
 
It would be safer to align the partitions on 4K boundaries, if you do
the convert without making sure that the partitions are aligned and if
you end up with 512 byte clusters the changes will not be reversible,
the only way out will be to format the drive. You really don't want 512
byte clusters!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll follow your advice.
 
Back
Top