Quantcast 64k NTFS Cluster Size Worth it for Video Processing? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
05-03-2006, 06:36 AM
cweb cweb is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 85
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Do you folks think it is really worth using a 64k NTFS cluster size for video processing?

Is it stable under XP Pro SP2? And would using the drive via an external enclosure - USB2 affect this?

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
05-03-2006, 08:04 AM
rds_correia rds_correia is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chinese Democracy starts now!
Posts: 2,563
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Now you got me.
I don't really know what is 64K NTFS.
I just know regular WinNT/2k/XP/2k3 NTFS.
Are you asking FAT32 vs NTFS?
If that's what you're asking and if your harddrive is at least >10GB and >PIII 500 with >=256MB I would always go for NTFS, period.
Remember the maximum allowed space for a single file under FAT32 is either 2 or 4GB.
And NTFS is supposed to autodefrag on the fly.
IMHO, FAT32 should only be used in less powered PCs.
Cheers
__________________
Rui
Reply With Quote
  #3  
05-03-2006, 08:26 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Now you got me.
I don't really know what is 64K NTFS.
I just know regular WinNT/2k/XP/2k3 NTFS.
Are you asking FAT32 vs NTFS?
He is talking about the cluster size on a NTFS partition.
I prefer to have the smallest cluster that give me the lesser waste space. In my cases they are 4K. I'm not convince about the gain to have big clusters even when manipulating big files that's why I did not answered to the question.

Quote:
And NTFS is supposed to autodefrag on the fly.
Urban legend. NTFS is more fragmented than FAT32 as it supports sparse file allocation. Yesterday I finished to DL a 3.7GB rar file on emule (with sparse option activated) and it was in... 28710 fragments ! Fortunaly sysinternals have a great tool to defragment a single file (I even recommand that before to burn something at high speed).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
05-03-2006, 08:36 AM
cweb cweb is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 85
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rds_correia
Now you got me.
I don't really know what is 64K NTFS.
I just know regular WinNT/2k/XP/2k3 NTFS.
Are you asking FAT32 vs NTFS?
Cheers
No, I'm not asking about FAT32.
I'm asking about formatting a partition as NTFS with 64k cluster sizes rather than the default (4k).

It does seem to cause directory corruption on my new hard disk, though. On the other hand I have for some months run a 64k cluster NTFS partition on another smaller external HD.
I suspect the size is the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
05-03-2006, 08:38 AM
cweb cweb is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 85
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
I'm not convince about the gain to have big clusters even when manipulating big files that's why I did not answered to the question.
I'm beginning to think the same like you. I tried to time TMPGENC encoding a video (KDVD) - well the time was practically the same. If there was any improvement with 64k, it was under a minute in time. So there is almost no gain at all.
I will, for the reasons that I don't wish to lose data, go back to default cluster sizes under NTFS! That means reformat of course.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
05-03-2006, 08:46 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cweb
I will, for the reasons that I don't wish to lose data, go back to default cluster sizes under NTFS! That means reformat of course.
No need. You can change the cluster size without loosing the data on your disc. Use Partition Magiq for instance, or download "Ultimate bootCD" where you will find free tools that can do that.
http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linux: Building Encoding Cluster venkatk Computers 24 04-19-2004 12:43 AM
Is it worth using filters on a movie? zaanvander Video Encoding and Conversion 5 03-16-2004 06:29 AM
Recording Video: Analog capture processing guide jorel Video Capturing / Recording 0 04-15-2003 01:43 AM
KVCD: Is it worth uisng convolution3d and dustv5? Adder Video Encoding and Conversion 1 03-12-2003 07:21 PM
Recording Video: FAT32 vs NTFS 4GB problem? twobit326 Video Capturing / Recording 3 11-17-2002 10:31 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd