The choice of cluster size has an impact on real-world performance, though for most people it is not all that significant. In a nutshell, larger clusters waste more space due to slack but generally provide for slightly better performance because there will be less fragmentation and more of the file will be in consecutive blocks. This occurs because when clusters are larger, fewer of them are needed than when they are small. A 10,000 byte file would require three 4 kiB clusters but only one 16 kiB cluster. This means this file will always be in a contiguous block if stored in a 16 kiB cluster, but could be fragmented if stored in a 4 kiB cluster size partition. The slack tradeoff is a waste of 4 kiB more storage in the case of the 16 kiB clusters, but, this is hardly an issue now with the gargantuan sizes of hard drives nowadays. Small cluster sizes also have a negative effect on partition because they require larger file allocation tables, to manage their much larger numbers of clusters.
Due to this advantage on real world performance of larger cluster size, many have tried to install windows on partitions with cluster sizes larger than 4kb but to no avail. Windows will not allow installing itself on a partition with a cluster size larger than the default allocation size of the NTFS file system... but there is a way around this. Though you cannot use anymore system restore and windows backup, and the installation disk for repairs but who uses them anyway. And who cares when your drive works like RAID.
Five years ago, I have tried for weeks to install Windows XP on a drive formatted with 64KB cluster size with no success. I have searched the net for related articles on how to install Windows on a 64KB cluster size drives or partitions and I found nothing. Okay, let’s cut to the chase, I know you’re itching to do this. Here’s how it works: visit
http://windowsinstalllargecluster.blogspot.com/