thepregnantgod Posted November 11, 2017 Posted November 11, 2017 I was doing some maintenance and I noticed a new cluster size option. Anyone else try this yet? Most of my pool is stored with large files (mkvs and such). I am curious if this would help performance. I'm not worried about space lost with small files. Quote
1 Christopher (Drashna) Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 It's new, yeah. As for pros vs cons, same ar 64kb clusters. Less fragmentation, better performance for sequential operations, but more unused "slack space" on the drive. Also potential issues in the form of backwards compatibility and NTFS bugs. Quote
0 GreatScott Posted November 11, 2017 Posted November 11, 2017 Is it possible this is actually 2048 bytes (not kb)? I've never heard of a cluster size greater than 64k, but 2k is certainly possible. Quote
0 thepregnantgod Posted November 12, 2017 Author Posted November 12, 2017 Nope. 2048k - it's new because the limit used to be 64k with default being 4k. Quote
Question
thepregnantgod
I was doing some maintenance and I noticed a new cluster size option.
Anyone else try this yet? Most of my pool is stored with large files (mkvs and such). I am curious if this would help performance.
I'm not worried about space lost with small files.
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.