I recently completed an analysis of my HDD drives, in particular the file sizes currently there, and still to be added.
One factor, is that the sector size is set at the factory and is static. Where the benefit comes in though is cluster size.
I've experienced improvements in read/write times by tweaking the cluster size allocated at HDD format. So far, because of time to save/restore and other impacts to time, I've only increased the cluster size to 8192.
However, it would really save time if I knew where the break-over point was. I know that there is a point of diminishing returns, I just don't know what that is.
Of course, FORMAT permits a maximum cluster size of 64K. I know the threshold for cost/performance ratio decline is somewhere between 8192 and 64K.
What I don't know is, do the following factors have to be examined and adjustments made as well to get the best price/performance ratio from the format of the drive?
1) Memory capacity?
2) CPU power/speed?
3) BUS speed?
4) Drivers?
5) A combination of two or more listed?
6) Something not listed?
I do know that how new the HDD's are, also plays a part along with the version of SATA in use (which the drives must accommodate).
My rig has the following features:
A) AMD 4GHz 8-core processor.
B) 16GB DDR3 2133
C) SATA III (though HDD drives have not yet been updated fully. Only 2 of the bank support SATA III speeds.)
D) ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX GEN3 R2.0 mobo (board had to be hardened due to environment it operates)
As to capacity, there is a total (among 5 internal) HDD capacity of 8.5TB (gross).
As to file sizes, two of the drives are at capacity now (4TB & 2TB) and those were analyzed. Average file size is 8.7GB, with max at 48GB and min at 2.7GB.
As data is captured, written then used later, the speed of retrieval becomes important. I don't wish to tweak a lot of different settings either in BIOS or Windows 7 at this point, I want to start at the hardware level that can find a good balance between capacity utilization and I/O.
Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
One factor, is that the sector size is set at the factory and is static. Where the benefit comes in though is cluster size.
I've experienced improvements in read/write times by tweaking the cluster size allocated at HDD format. So far, because of time to save/restore and other impacts to time, I've only increased the cluster size to 8192.
However, it would really save time if I knew where the break-over point was. I know that there is a point of diminishing returns, I just don't know what that is.
Of course, FORMAT permits a maximum cluster size of 64K. I know the threshold for cost/performance ratio decline is somewhere between 8192 and 64K.
What I don't know is, do the following factors have to be examined and adjustments made as well to get the best price/performance ratio from the format of the drive?
1) Memory capacity?
2) CPU power/speed?
3) BUS speed?
4) Drivers?
5) A combination of two or more listed?
6) Something not listed?
I do know that how new the HDD's are, also plays a part along with the version of SATA in use (which the drives must accommodate).
My rig has the following features:
A) AMD 4GHz 8-core processor.
B) 16GB DDR3 2133
C) SATA III (though HDD drives have not yet been updated fully. Only 2 of the bank support SATA III speeds.)
D) ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX GEN3 R2.0 mobo (board had to be hardened due to environment it operates)
As to capacity, there is a total (among 5 internal) HDD capacity of 8.5TB (gross).
As to file sizes, two of the drives are at capacity now (4TB & 2TB) and those were analyzed. Average file size is 8.7GB, with max at 48GB and min at 2.7GB.
As data is captured, written then used later, the speed of retrieval becomes important. I don't wish to tweak a lot of different settings either in BIOS or Windows 7 at this point, I want to start at the hardware level that can find a good balance between capacity utilization and I/O.
Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
Such is the reason I reach out to forums such as this - to find an answer accurate and appropriate for the issue at hand.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram