How to check cluster size

  • Thread starter Thread starter CW
  • Start date Start date
Thanks Rehan but I have found lots of useful info on the
Microsoft site, in the XP Resource Kit.
Click to expand...

Well done.

Oh dear, looks like I started WW III.
Click to expand...

Dont worry... you will find only one party firing all the shots. Others are
here to help only however much they can. Particularly I am not trying to
score points or execute any other agendas.
when I format my new one (E:) I shall do it in 64kb
clusters and hope to see a performance improvement.
Click to expand...

I would suggest to do a few tests to measure any performance gain:

Measuring time for each step repeat these tests with identical conditions
except cluster size

(format or fully defragment)
1. Copying one large (say 5Gb) file
1.1 from another drive (would hint on write performance)
1.2 to another drive (would hint on the read performance)
1.3 from and to the same drive
(format or fully defragment again)
2. Copying 1000 files of small sizes (all less than 50Kb)
Repeat steps 1.1 to 1.3

(format or fully defragment again)
3. Capture 15 mins of dv avi file
4. Play it using Media Player Classic which can show stats about how many
frames skipped etc.
5. etc.


Thats gonna keep you busy fr some time :) But please come back to post your
results.
 
Hello

Dont worry... you will find only one party firing all the shots. Others are
here to help only however much they can. Particularly I am not trying to
score points or execute any other agendas.
Click to expand...

Any other agenda??? Lets see, was'nt it you whp told CW to clear off from thois
newsgroup because his question was not relevant....was it not you who was very
rude towards him? Was it not you who then gave him in your usual overpowering
manner information that was completly WRONG, was it not you who when asked for
further clarification gave yet more WRONG information. Where would my agenda
fit into the above????

Was it not you who started throwing chalenges around yet again with regard to
image ratios''''when he was told he was wrong and after quite a long speach
from you on why everyone else was wrong with your usual aggressive manner
suddenly found that, in effect, you were being told to shut up by Microsoft
because you were yet again totally wrong?

Was itr not you who gave detailed instructions on how the registry was used and
yet again with your usual air of authority forcing your info on to other
people....and then had to again apologise because you were tottaly
wrong...dangerously so....

Was it not you who decided to change what OP's were asking because it suited
your description...which also turned out to be wrong anyway

Was it not you who having decided that you did not like the question asked
decided to re-write it amd then when the OP comp[lained you basically called
him a LIAR

For those who are wondering about thios...ALL of the above was done by the
person known as rehan and in the last 2 - 3 days....

Is it not you who has just given CW a list of instruction on how to test the
increased cluster size that are hopelessly wrong AND again demonstrating your
own TOTAL lack of knowledge on the subject...actually you had already done that
so I suppose this is an error built on top of a previous error

Now lets get to the nub of it....WAS IT NOT YOU who decided to belittle remarks
I had made about a program called "Fix-It" and para phrased what I had said so
as to gain points, only to find yet again that you had not only totally mis
understood what the OP wanted, you also gave wrong advice on what you thought
he wanted

All of this in the last 2 - 3 days.....Exactly how would any agenda of mine
cause you to do all of this.

And yes, you guessed right...I do have an agenda....its to make sure that
people like you stop giving out a complete load of rubbish while ordering
people out of this newsgroup or calling them a liar.....
--
Best Wishes.....John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
Just glad I don't live in Croydon, UK
\|||/
(o o)
----------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
 
For the benefit of the person known as papajohn...compression is possible
...get
a new handbook, the girl guides guide to plant life is no good in this
game.
Click to expand...

Please refer the link to XP Resource Kit, that I believe CW obtained from
your website... See in particular this page:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_lxty.asp

which states near the end:

" ... Windows XP Professional, like Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000,
supports file compression. Because file compression is not supported on
cluster sizes above 4 KB, the default NTFS cluster size for Windows XP
Professional never exceeds 4 KB. For more information about NTFS
compression, see "File Compression" later in this chapter."


May be this documentat needs updating or something?

---
Rehan
www.rehanfx.org - get more effects and transitions for movie maker
 
HEllo

I guess it does...its wrong.

But in any case, what does compression have to do with the OP question...its
another case of confusing the issue.....

--
Best Wishes.....John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
Just glad I don't live in Croydon, UK
\|||/
(o o)
----------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
 
Hello CW,

Sorry I did not see your message....there was so much flack from those who do
not like to be corrected...

Anyway, as I have said to PJ, what do u think would be
the best way to do some comparison tests - what is the
most demanding process that MM2 could throw at the
respective file structures, to show up the performance
gains?
Click to expand...

I mean this in a kind way...don't take the hump :) If you remember papajohn
pinched the stuff I said and put it on his website and then asked you to
validate it.... I mean, how could you, you were brand new to the subject and
the person at that moment with the least knowledge on the issue, that's why you
asked for help that was freely given.

So asking papajohn for help is a bit of a no no. As far as rehan goes, his
remarks on how to evaluate it are a hopeless waste of time...once more he has
demonstrated that he can invent a good line. papajohn in his cv states he is an
expert in database technology, so when the next version of NTFS comes out he
will be able to give us all the benefit of his thoughts....the new files system
is a database in the proper sense of the word. I have to say that I am quite
excited about its coming....I am looking forward to see it...but I also have a
reservation....I have not yet seen a microsoft database that is not prone to
crashing (That applies to other manufacturers just as much)

The reason for using a 64kb cluster as far as Movie Maker is concerned is on
my website in the disk drive FAQ under the heading NTFS. 64kb clusters are
definitely not suitable on your C drive. When you see the discussion on my site
it will be very clear to you.

As far as your personal needs go, Format the drive you intend to use for Movie
Maker capture etc so that it has 64k clusters, do not do that with your C
drive. If you only had one large C drive perhaps one of the slightly larger
cluster sizes would be of use, but only if you use programs like Movie Maker a
lot.
--
Best Wishes.....John Kelly
www.the-kellys.org
www.the-kellys.co.uk
Just glad I don't live in Croydon, UK
\|||/
(o o)
----------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------------
All material gained from other sources is duly acknowledged. No Value is
obtained by publishing in any format other peoples work
 
Back
Top