|
|
| Author |
Message |
DIYspanner

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 159 Location: United Kingdom Thanked: 4 times
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:56 pm |
|
|
When installing XP using NTFS, is there a way to set the cluster sizes to 256 bytes or even 122 bytes rather than 512 bytes?
I am aware that a smaller cluster size impedes HDD speed but I'm keen to optimize space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
If you do not want to see this advert, click here to login or if you are new click here to join free. |
 |
Monkeh

Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 3424 Location: Cornwall, United Kingdom Thanked: 259 times
|
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:26 pm |
|
|
Quite how much space do you think you'll gain?
And no, you can't have a cluster size smaller than 512 bytes, and I would not recommend going that small anyway. You will not gain a useful amount of space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
Monsterminty

Joined: 26 May 2011 Posts: 238 Location: Pembrokeshire, United Kingdom Thanked: 29 times
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:45 pm |
|
|
just buy another hdd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
DIYspanner

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 159 Location: United Kingdom Thanked: 4 times
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:03 pm |
|
|
The way I understand it is that only the content of one file will be stored in any particular cluster, the file being spread across as many clusters that are required to store that file.
However, if only say a few bytes of data (the end of the file) get stored on a cluster, the rest of that cluster is then redundant for further storage, hence my thoughts on reducing cluster size.
If I'm wrong on this line of thought fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Monkeh

Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 3424 Location: Cornwall, United Kingdom Thanked: 259 times
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:22 pm |
|
|
| DIYspanner wrote: | The way I understand it is that only the content of one file will be stored in any particular cluster, the file being spread across as many clusters that are required to store that file.
However, if only say a few bytes of data (the end of the file) get stored on a cluster, the rest of that cluster is then redundant for further storage, hence my thoughts on reducing cluster size.
If I'm wrong on this line of thought fair enough. |
And just how many files under 4096 bytes do you think you'll have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
Monsterminty

Joined: 26 May 2011 Posts: 238 Location: Pembrokeshire, United Kingdom Thanked: 29 times
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
Monkeh

Joined: 25 Jan 2010 Posts: 3424 Location: Cornwall, United Kingdom Thanked: 259 times
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:02 pm |
|
|
Trust me, this sort of 'optimisation' is utterly pointless. You will not gain any useful additional space (you may in fact lose usable space), and you will ruin the performance of the filesystem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
 |
DIYspanner

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 159 Location: United Kingdom Thanked: 4 times
|
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:33 pm |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|