Questions about NTFS

Well, I've been reading quite a bit about how converting to NTFS will help speed things up on this laptop, and even that thread about the fact that we should be careful using the 'convert' command because we may get the 512 byte cluster size and actually take a performance hit. So, I converted by D: drive using the 'convert' command, and it went fine. I checked the cluster size - 4kb - perfect.

So, I went ahead and converted the c: drive, but when I checked that one, I saw that the cluster size is 512 bytes, and the system does seem slower, especially at start up.

So, how can I fix this? Is there a way to convert it to NTFS with a 4kb cluster size w/o having to wipe the disk and start over?

 

Not sure, but you can use utilities like Acronis Disk Director, or another partition manager to change the cluster size. As with any disk operation it is recommended to do a backup of your files.

 

Yes, I had the same problem when converting my C partition.

Using Partition Magic (or I'm sure Acronis Disk Director as mentioned above would also work), I was able to change the Cluster size from 512bytes to the desirable 4kb and everything ran a whole lot better.

Only problem is, they aren't free programs. (One or the other may offer a functional trail period so you'll have it long enough to make the change...not sure).

 

Thanks very much for the replies. I went ahead and restored from the recovery partition (of course, after backing up all of the data), and it changed the C: drive back to FAT32. I think I'm going to leave the C: drive as FAT32, as it is very fast. If I need to burn a DVD (and therefore need to have files greater than 4gb), then I'll just put them on the D: drive (which is NTFS w/4kb clusters). I think that ought to solve most of my problems. By the way, through all of this, I did find out that even after converting to NTFS, the recovery disks (if you burn them) or the recovery partition will both restore C: to FAT 32, and it all works flawlessly.

 

Wow! I never knew about the 512 and 4096 cluster difference. This is great! I was wondering why my drive was so much slower after converting. Same as robertlewisca, my D: drive converted to 4096 no problem but my C: went to the 512 size. I do have Partition Magic somewhere so I'll post after converting my drive again to see if I have a speed difference.

 

Of course, like most other, I didn’t know about this cluster thing and how it would affect speed. Two questions come to mind: -

1. How to I check my drive’s cluster size?
2. Could the data get corrupted when changing cluster size?

 

I just noticed this myself. I eargerly await your results

@Wail
1. I'm sure there are more elegant ways to do this, but if you run analyse in Disk Defragmenter from the System Tools menu, the report will give you the cluster sizes.
2. I believe so as the utility would be changing how the hard drive is supposed to store data.

 

Well I went to a neighbour who said Paragon's Disk Management (I think that's what it was called) was better so he came over and we set up the convert from 512bytes to 4096bytes. It was simple and straightforward but took about an hour to do.

The startup of the computer is nowhere near as fast as it was with Fat32 though, might even be a little slower than when the it was NTFS with 512 bytes.
Starting up programs though is much faster. About twice as fast as when my computer was on 512 bytes.

I do not index my drive so I'm not sure if that would help speed up the loading process.

There were not problems converting but I still don't have much on the computer.

Good luck to all! And if someone could explain why the computer loads so much faster in Fat32 I would greatly appreciate it.

 

I can answer question 1, thanks to this forum. You can check cluster size by analyzing the disk with the disk defragmentation utility in windows. You don't need to defrag. the drive, just analyze the drive, and then click "View Report". It will tell you the cluster size on the drive.

 

i just got an asus. it came with two partitions and both were fat32. there is a batch file on the desktop to convert to ntfs. the question now is:

from what i read ntfs is faster in general but slower at start up. which i dont care too much. but I also read on asus forum that a converted fat32 into ntfs is slower than a brand new ntfs XP installation.

what do you guys think about that? because at this point i've been thinking about formatting everything and reinstalling creating 2 new ntfs partitions.

comments?

 

Thanks for the replies

 

i just ran the ANALYZE in computer management.

I have to partitions, a fat32, and it says cluster size 16KB :S

and the other is a ntfs with cluster size 512 bytes, this was converted from fat32.

what the heck is the deal with that fat32 16kb cluster size.

does anybody know the answer?

 

A File Allocation Table (FAT) refresher, for those who need it.

A volume formatted with the FAT16 or FAT32 file system is organized by cluster which are numbered and tracked in a FAT table (chain directory).
A cluster is a pre-defined number of sectors, sectors being the most basic physical unit that data is stored in.

The default cluster size is determined by the size of the volume and is automatically calculated by default when a volume is formatted. For the FAT file system, the cluster number must fit in 16 bits and must be a power of two.

A FAT16 table can only track between 4087 and 65526 clusters, inclusive. This sets an upper limit on the max size of a volume when formatted as FAT16.
A FAT32 table can only track between 65526 and 4,177,918 clusters, inclusive.
Similarly, this sets an upper limit on the max size of a volume when formatted as FAT32.

The best FAT performance is "usually" obtained by letting the formatting program set the number of sectors per cluster based on volume size, although this does not always result in the most efficient space management.

BUT....

For the user who wants some control over the sector per cluster number, there are a couple ways to override the default number of sectors per cluster.

1st) The user can format a volume using the command line where they set the number of sectors per cluster with some options as follows:
FORMAT volume [/FS:file-system] [/V:label] [/Q] [/A:size] [/C] [/X]
e.g.
Format C: /FS:FAT32 /A:4096
The above command sets the sectors per cluster to 8.
As in, 512bytes (per sector) x 8 sectors =4096 bytes

Again, default settings are strongly recommended for general use.

The options for the /A: command in clusters are as follows:
NTFS supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K.
FAT supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K,
FAT32 supports 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16K, 32K, 64K,

However, the format command will immediately stop processing if it decides that the above cluster number requirements cannot be met using the specified cluster size based on volume size.

2nd) The user can use a 3rd party partition manager/manipulator/editor program to rewrite the number of sectors per cluster. This process can take a couple of minutes on an empty volume or a few hours on a densely populated volume, depending on computer speed. A couple programs that can change the cluster size include, Partition Magic 8, Paragon Hard Disk Manager, and others, including Linux based tools. The same limitations apply as if using the command line, except in some cases the partition program will shrink or expand the volume to fit the requested cluster size.

The answer to "Why is FAT32 faster than NTFS"? is:

FAT32 is a simple non-journaling (non-transactional) file system. It has very few bells and whistles while it doesn't have the overhead of keeping track of posting and editing transactions as it's built as a simple lookup chain directory. It will be faster on lightly to almost-medium populated volumes but more prone to corruption and data loss. FAT32 has no method of inherently replacing data in bad clusters.

NTFS will be faster from medium to heavily populated volumes. NTFS is also much more resistant to data loss and corruption since it employs a tracking method of posting/editing and rolling back file system transactions (journaling file system) in it's Master File Table (MFT) NTFS also supports file level security, compression and auditing, among other features, while it is running. NTFS also performs bad cluster remapping on the fly. NTFS uses bitmapping and btrieve functions which are inherently slower but more secure.

If the disk tools you own are FAT32 oriented, then either upgrade them or keep your FAT32 volumes. Otherwise, my suggestion is to leave FAT32 behind, unless it's on removable thumb drives.

Eventually NTFS will be replaced with an SQL "type" of file management system (database oriented). There were statements that Microsoft could and would supply the new file system with Vista, unfortunately Microsoft found out that it is much harder to supply a fully robust file management system in the time they initially allotted. A file system must ALWAYS work, never burp, and fit perfectly into the overlying operating system. A very difficult job to say the least.

Hope someone learned something today.

(next time give me a subject more recent, my memory doesn't cough up old facts so easily anymore.)