thepregnantgod Posted November 11, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 Christopher (Drashna) Posted November 12, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 GreatScott Posted November 11, 2017 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 thepregnantgod Posted November 12, 2017 Author Share Posted November 12, 2017 Nope. 2048k - it's new because the limit used to be 64k with default being 4k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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.