Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NTFS in XP

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi All,



I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).



While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have formatted
the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.



Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.



When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as: NTFS
3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1? Please
Advice.



Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?



Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?



Thanks

Prabhat

More about : ntfs

Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Prabhat wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>
>
>
> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>
>
>
> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>
>
>
> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
> NTFS
> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
> Please Advice.
>
>
>
> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>
>
>
> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Prabhat

You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
NTFS file format revision number.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.

I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others, or you
used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.

512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more efficient. It
can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives you the
ability to use all the space on your drive.

"Prabhat" wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>
>
>
> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have formatted
> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>
>
>
> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>
>
>
> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as: NTFS
> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1? Please
> Advice.
>
>
>
> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>
>
>
> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Prabhat
>
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o A1hZmHgFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>
>
>
> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
formatted
> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>
>
>
> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>
>
>
> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as: NTFS
> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
Please
> Advice.

PM has it right, you are wrong. This is the XP version of NTFS.

>
>
>
> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?

Is this a question, or an observation with an errant question mark?
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-pr...

>
>
>
> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?

Read the commentary from Scot Finnie in the middle of this webpage:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Storage/Q_20795143.html

This supposedley does the trick if you choose to do so:
http://www.partition-manager.com/n_pm_requir.htm

>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Prabhat
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

That's the version of NTFS in Windows XP. There seems to be some confusion
at Microsoft what the version of the file susyem is in their NT Operating
systems. But PM is telling you the truth.

--
George Hester
_______________________________
"Prabhat" <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o A1hZmHgFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>
>
>
> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
formatted
> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>
>
>
> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>
>
>
> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as: NTFS
> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
Please
> Advice.
>
>
>
> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>
>
>
> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Prabhat
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

512 Byte clusters are not more efficient than 4KBytes. System
performance will suffer. 4KBytes is the preferred size. On any
partition with "Large" data modules (Video, Music) using large
clusters (up to 64KBytes) may be more efficient, but results in
more wastage.

"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com...
> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>
> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
> Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others, or
> you
> used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.
>
> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more efficient.
> It
> can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives you
> the
> ability to use all the space on your drive.
>
> "Prabhat" wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>
>>
>>
>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>> formatted
>> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>
>>
>>
>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>> NTFS
>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>> Please
>> Advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Prabhat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite common
in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other than
destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools that can
change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects the data
storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any effect on
performance.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
> Prabhat wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>
>>
>>
>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>
>>
>>
>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>> NTFS
>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>> Please Advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Prabhat
>
> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
> NTFS file format revision number.
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

The most efficient cluster size is 4k. That is why it is the "default".

Change it to something other, without valid reason (such as a drive that
holds many huge AutoCAD drawings that ate over 25 meg each - and nothing
else) and you will impact the drive performance.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com...
> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>
> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
> Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others, or
> you
> used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.
>
> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more efficient.
> It
> can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives you
> the
> ability to use all the space on your drive.
>
> "Prabhat" wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>
>>
>>
>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>> formatted
>> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>
>>
>>
>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>
>>
>>
>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>> NTFS
>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>> Please
>> Advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Prabhat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

In news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com,
Manny Borges <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:

> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>
> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that
> makes
> sense. Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format
> of the
> others, or you used a third party utility to do theother three
> partitions.
>
> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more
> efficient.


More efficient with regard to wasting less space to cluster
overhang (or "slack"), but it requires extra I/O and can result
in considerably poorer performance. Especially in these days of
very inexpensive hard drives, worrying about a small difference
in waste due to the amount of slack is counterproductive.

The total amount of slack on your drive is roughly half the
cluster size times the number of files. Even if one has as many
as 500,000 files, that's 128,000,00 bytes of slack for 256byte
clusters, and 1GB for 4K clusters. So the savings with 512-byte
clusters is 7/8 of a GB (probably less, because most people won't
have as many as 500,000 files).

These days hard drives sell for $1 US per GB, or less. I saw an
ad just this morning for a 160GB drive on sale for $40, or $.25 a
GB. The savings by using the smaller clusters is well under $1's
worth of disk space. For almost everyone, that's insignificant;
far better to worry about the performance implications of smaller
clusters. 4K is a much better cluster size than 512 bytes.


> It can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files,
> but it gives you the ability to use all the space on your
> drive.


No it doesn't. No cluster size lets you use "all the space on
your drive." Smaller cluster sizes let you use more of it, but
"all" isn't possible.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Partition Magic will do Cluster resizing on a 512 Byte sized partition.
You have to do some prep work for it to work properly. I've done
this on a number of FAT32->NTFS conversions where the boundary
limitation created the 512-Byte clusters. There are a few pitfalls that
can cause it to fail (Sparse Data Attributes) & compressed files and
folders. You have to be careful with an XP (SP2) partition if you try
to use greater than 4K-Byte clusters. SP2 has an issue with record
spanning at boot and you'll get a "I/O error". If you want to use a XP
partition with 8K+ clusters you have to install XP using a Gold/SP1
disk and then apply Service Pack 2. Even with that, if you ever do a
"Repair Install" you'll get the I/O error and have to resize back to 4K.


"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
> common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other
> than destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools that
> can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects the
> data storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any effect
> on performance.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
> news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>> Prabhat wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>> NTFS
>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>> Please Advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Prabhat
>>
>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
>> NTFS file format revision number.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi Richard,

I don't think it will amount to much if anything of a hit on performance,
since it is presumably only storage volumes that are affected. The system
volume is using 4k clusters and, assuming the pagefile has not been moved,
the majority of the "action" will be happening here.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23UKk$AJgFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> The most efficient cluster size is 4k. That is why it is the "default".
>
> Change it to something other, without valid reason (such as a drive that
> holds many huge AutoCAD drawings that ate over 25 meg each - and nothing
> else) and you will impact the drive performance.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com...
>> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>>
>> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
>> Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others, or
>> you
>> used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.
>>
>> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more efficient.
>> It
>> can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives you
>> the
>> ability to use all the space on your drive.
>>
>> "Prabhat" wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>> formatted
>>> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>> NTFS
>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>> Please
>>> Advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Prabhat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi,

I was aware of PM's alleged ability, but the two people I know that tried it
both ended up with corrupted volumes and loss of all data on them. I should
have rephrased that as "I do not know of any tools that can change the NTFS
cluster size post-conversion successfully".

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o h4ny$IgFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Partition Magic will do Cluster resizing on a 512 Byte sized partition.
> You have to do some prep work for it to work properly. I've done
> this on a number of FAT32->NTFS conversions where the boundary
> limitation created the 512-Byte clusters. There are a few pitfalls that
> can cause it to fail (Sparse Data Attributes) & compressed files and
> folders. You have to be careful with an XP (SP2) partition if you try
> to use greater than 4K-Byte clusters. SP2 has an issue with record
> spanning at boot and you'll get a "I/O error". If you want to use a XP
> partition with 8K+ clusters you have to install XP using a Gold/SP1
> disk and then apply Service Pack 2. Even with that, if you ever do a
> "Repair Install" you'll get the I/O error and have to resize back to 4K.
>
>
> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
>> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
>> common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other
>> than destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools
>> that can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects
>> the data storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any
>> effect on performance.
>>
>> --
>> Best of Luck,
>>
>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>
>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>> news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>>> Prabhat wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>> NTFS
>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>> Please Advice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Prabhat
>>>
>>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
>>> NTFS file format revision number.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

But if the CAD files are stored on a dedicated partition the larger cluster
sizes do seem to decrease the file loading time a noticeable amount!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%2307YcOJgFHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Richard,
>
> I don't think it will amount to much if anything of a hit on performance,
> since it is presumably only storage volumes that are affected. The system
> volume is using 4k clusters and, assuming the pagefile has not been moved,
> the majority of the "action" will be happening here.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UKk$AJgFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> The most efficient cluster size is 4k. That is why it is the "default".
>>
>> Change it to something other, without valid reason (such as a drive that
>> holds many huge AutoCAD drawings that ate over 25 meg each - and nothing
>> else) and you will impact the drive performance.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>>
>> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>
>>
>> "Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com...
>>> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>>>
>>> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
>>> Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others,
>>> or you
>>> used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.
>>>
>>> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more efficient.
>>> It
>>> can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives you
>>> the
>>> ability to use all the space on your drive.
>>>
>>> "Prabhat" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>> formatted
>>>> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>> NTFS
>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>> Please
>>>> Advice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Prabhat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Rick,

I should have added the Universal caveat to image the drive
before even attempting it. Acronis also has a product that will
do it as well. Best I remember you have to uncompress the
DllCache Folder and remove any $NTUn..., which are also
compressed. It's definitely a 7-8 on the difficulty scale and
not a "Novice" type of procedure. Conversion is also very
time intensive, especially for users with a single partition or
a drive that holds 100% of their setup. A 6-10 Gigabyte disk
or partition will usually take 45-minutes to an hour. Best done
with a PQMagic DOS boot floppy/CD-R.




"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:u2A4oMJgFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I was aware of PM's alleged ability, but the two people I know that tried
> it both ended up with corrupted volumes and loss of all data on them. I
> should have rephrased that as "I do not know of any tools that can change
> the NTFS cluster size post-conversion successfully".
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:o h4ny$IgFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Partition Magic will do Cluster resizing on a 512 Byte sized partition.
>> You have to do some prep work for it to work properly. I've done
>> this on a number of FAT32->NTFS conversions where the boundary
>> limitation created the 512-Byte clusters. There are a few pitfalls that
>> can cause it to fail (Sparse Data Attributes) & compressed files and
>> folders. You have to be careful with an XP (SP2) partition if you try
>> to use greater than 4K-Byte clusters. SP2 has an issue with record
>> spanning at boot and you'll get a "I/O error". If you want to use a XP
>> partition with 8K+ clusters you have to install XP using a Gold/SP1
>> disk and then apply Service Pack 2. Even with that, if you ever do a
>> "Repair Install" you'll get the I/O error and have to resize back to 4K.
>>
>>
>> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
>>> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
>>> common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other
>>> than destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools
>>> that can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only
>>> affects the data storage volumes, this small cluster size should not
>>> have any effect on performance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best of Luck,
>>>
>>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>>
>>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>>>> Prabhat wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>>> NTFS
>>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>>> Please Advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Prabhat
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with
>>>> the NTFS file format revision number.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 6:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I agree. Rinning the 9x utility 'winalign' BEFORE the convert is the only good solution I know. (Too late, of course for the
original poster.)

--
Mark L. Ferguson
FAQ for Windows Antispy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message news:u2A4oMJgFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> I was aware of PM's alleged ability, but the two people I know that tried it both ended up with corrupted volumes and loss of all
> data on them. I should have rephrased that as "I do not know of any tools that can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion
> successfully".
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:o h4ny$IgFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Partition Magic will do Cluster resizing on a 512 Byte sized partition.
>> You have to do some prep work for it to work properly. I've done
>> this on a number of FAT32->NTFS conversions where the boundary
>> limitation created the 512-Byte clusters. There are a few pitfalls that
>> can cause it to fail (Sparse Data Attributes) & compressed files and
>> folders. You have to be careful with an XP (SP2) partition if you try
>> to use greater than 4K-Byte clusters. SP2 has an issue with record
>> spanning at boot and you'll get a "I/O error". If you want to use a XP
>> partition with 8K+ clusters you have to install XP using a Gold/SP1
>> disk and then apply Service Pack 2. Even with that, if you ever do a
>> "Repair Install" you'll get the I/O error and have to resize back to 4K.
>>
>>
>> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion.
>>> This is quite common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other than destroying and recreating the
>>> volume. I do not know of any tools that can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects the data storage
>>> volumes, this small cluster size should not have any effect on performance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best of Luck,
>>>
>>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>>
>>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>>>> Prabhat wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>>> NTFS
>>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>>> Please Advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Prabhat
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the NTFS file format revision number.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
July 4, 2005 10:54:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more space
efficient.

And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster size.

"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
> common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other
> than destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools that
> can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects the
> data storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any effect
> on performance.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
> news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>> Prabhat wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>> NTFS
>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>> Please Advice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Prabhat
>>
>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
>> NTFS file format revision number.
>>
>
>
July 5, 2005 12:44:07 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

!


"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1ndqkJgFHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> But if the CAD files are stored on a dedicated partition the larger
> cluster sizes do seem to decrease the file loading time a noticeable
> amount!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%2307YcOJgFHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I don't think it will amount to much if anything of a hit on performance,
>> since it is presumably only storage volumes that are affected. The system
>> volume is using 4k clusters and, assuming the pagefile has not been
>> moved, the majority of the "action" will be happening here.
>>
>> --
>> Best of Luck,
>>
>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23UKk$AJgFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> The most efficient cluster size is 4k. That is why it is the "default".
>>>
>>> Change it to something other, without valid reason (such as a drive that
>>> holds many huge AutoCAD drawings that ate over 25 meg each - and nothing
>>> else) and you will impact the drive performance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban
>>>
>>> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>>
>>>
>>> "Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com...
>>>> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
>>>> Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others,
>>>> or you
>>>> used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.
>>>>
>>>> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more
>>>> efficient. It
>>>> can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives
>>>> you the
>>>> ability to use all the space on your drive.
>>>>
>>>> "Prabhat" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>>> formatted
>>>>> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>>> NTFS
>>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>>> Please
>>>>> Advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Prabhat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:02:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

!


"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1ndqkJgFHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> But if the CAD files are stored on a dedicated partition the larger
> cluster sizes do seem to decrease the file loading time a noticeable
> amount!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
>
> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%2307YcOJgFHA.3460@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> I don't think it will amount to much if anything of a hit on performance,
>> since it is presumably only storage volumes that are affected. The system
>> volume is using 4k clusters and, assuming the pagefile has not been
>> moved, the majority of the "action" will be happening here.
>>
>> --
>> Best of Luck,
>>
>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>
>> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23UKk$AJgFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> The most efficient cluster size is 4k. That is why it is the "default".
>>>
>>> Change it to something other, without valid reason (such as a drive that
>>> holds many huge AutoCAD drawings that ate over 25 meg each - and nothing
>>> else) and you will impact the drive performance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban
>>>
>>> If you knew as much as you thought you know,
>>> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>>>
>>>
>>> "Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com...
>>>> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that makes sense.
>>>> Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format of the others,
>>>> or you
>>>> used a third party utility to do theother three partitions.
>>>>
>>>> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more
>>>> efficient. It
>>>> can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files, but it gives
>>>> you the
>>>> ability to use all the space on your drive.
>>>>
>>>> "Prabhat" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>>> formatted
>>>>> the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>>> NTFS
>>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>>> Please
>>>>> Advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Prabhat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:52:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

512K are large and will be less space efficient- or is it 512byte clusters
you mean?


"SC" <a@bb.com> wrote in message
news:e3vNCvJgFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more space
> efficient.
>
> And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster
> size.
>
> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
>> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
>> common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other
>> than destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools
>> that can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects
>> the data storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any
>> effect on performance.
>>
>> --
>> Best of Luck,
>>
>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>
>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>> news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>>> Prabhat wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>> NTFS
>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>> Please Advice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Prabhat
>>>
>>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with the
>>> NTFS file format revision number.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
July 5, 2005 1:54:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

512 bytes and 4KB, obviously. Sorry about that.


"Alan Smith" <alan@hidden.email> wrote in message
news:D ac81d$9pl$3@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 512K are large and will be less space efficient- or is it 512byte clusters
> you mean?
>
>
> "SC" <a@bb.com> wrote in message
> news:e3vNCvJgFHA.2152@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more space
>> efficient.
>>
>> And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster
>> size.
>>
>> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:%23$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
>>> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
>>> common in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other
>>> than destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools
>>> that can change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only
>>> affects the data storage volumes, this small cluster size should not
>>> have any effect on performance.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best of Luck,
>>>
>>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>>
>>> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0u8ye.7$D57.0@fe01.ams...
>>>> Prabhat wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 80 GB HDD and have 5 Partitions (20 + 15 + 15 + 15 + 15).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> While installing XP + SP2 Slipstreamed in Drive C of 20 GB I have
>>>>> formatted the C: with XP NTFS. Rest all drives are FAT32.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Later I converted other Drives to NTFS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I view the drives using Partition Magic it display NTFS Type as:
>>>>> NTFS
>>>>> 3.1. But I think XP has NTFS 5.1 then Why does it still display 3.1?
>>>>> Please Advice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also The C: (Formatted in XP) display 4K but other display 512?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any way that I can convert to Partitions to 4K NTFS?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Prabhat
>>>>
>>>> You're confusing XP's version number (it is, technically NT5.1) with
>>>> the NTFS file format revision number.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:48:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi,

In My XP PArtition I have 4K Cluster SIZE. But rest all partition (DATA
partitions) are 512 Bytes.
First I have Converted them from FAT32 to FAT32 4 K Aligned and then NTFS
Using PM 7 But Still I get 512b.

Thanks
Prabhat


"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:#$vkq5IgFHA.3936@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In addition, the 512 byte clusters are the result of the partitions not
> being aligned on the 4K boundaries prior to conversion. This is quite
common
> in a FAT32 partition. There is naught you can do about this other than
> destroying and recreating the volume. I do not know of any tools that can
> change the NTFS cluster size post-conversion. As it only affects the data
> storage volumes, this small cluster size should not have any effect on
> performance.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:50:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi, I Will look into the Tool.

"Mark L. Ferguson" <marfer_mvpREMOVE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:#ZhtkRJgFHA.3912@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I agree. Rinning the 9x utility 'winalign' BEFORE the convert is the only
good solution I know. (Too late, of course for the
> original poster.)
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:54:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more space
> efficient.
>
> And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster
size.
>

Thanks for the Info.
I wanted to go for Good Performance (Not spece efficient - because now
storage media is becomming less price) and Of course LESS Fragements. So I
sould go for 4K instead of 512bytes.

Thanks
Prabhat
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In article <ODhBvLTgFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
Prabhat <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more space
>> efficient.
>>
>> And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster
>size.
>>
>
>Thanks for the Info.
>I wanted to go for Good Performance (Not spece efficient - because now
>storage media is becomming less price) and Of course LESS Fragements. So I
>sould go for 4K instead of 512bytes.
>
>Thanks
>Prabhat
>
>


If your files are compressible compression gives you fwere fragments,
also. Think about it. Life's full of tradeoffs. You could experiment
and benchmark but I doubt you'd see any performance difference.

I had an application reading GB-sized files containing only numbers
that was bottlenecked on I-O. NTFS compression reduced the file size
by a factor of 10 and sped the application significantly. YMMV


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:56:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi, I think you are right. The 4K Cluster will perform better then the 512
byte.

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eoVy90IgFHA.3436@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> 512 Byte clusters are not more efficient than 4KBytes. System
> performance will suffer. 4KBytes is the preferred size. On any
> partition with "Large" data modules (Video, Music) using large
> clusters (up to 64KBytes) may be more efficient, but results in
> more wastage.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:59:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi Ken,

You are right. That is the reason I asked how do I convert the FAT32
Partitions (D:, E: etc. As My C: - The XP Partition is already 4K NTFS) to
4K NTFS without loosing Data.
Please suggest.

Thanks
Prabhat


"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:o ervRFLgFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> In news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com,
> Manny Borges <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>
> > About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
> >
> > I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that
> > makes
> > sense. Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight format
> > of the
> > others, or you used a third party utility to do theother three
> > partitions.
> >
> > 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more
> > efficient.
>
>
> More efficient with regard to wasting less space to cluster
> overhang (or "slack"), but it requires extra I/O and can result
> in considerably poorer performance. Especially in these days of
> very inexpensive hard drives, worrying about a small difference
> in waste due to the amount of slack is counterproductive.
>
> The total amount of slack on your drive is roughly half the
> cluster size times the number of files. Even if one has as many
> as 500,000 files, that's 128,000,00 bytes of slack for 256byte
> clusters, and 1GB for 4K clusters. So the savings with 512-byte
> clusters is 7/8 of a GB (probably less, because most people won't
> have as many as 500,000 files).
>
> These days hard drives sell for $1 US per GB, or less. I saw an
> ad just this morning for a 160GB drive on sale for $40, or $.25 a
> GB. The savings by using the smaller clusters is well under $1's
> worth of disk space. For almost everyone, that's insignificant;
> far better to worry about the performance implications of smaller
> clusters. 4K is a much better cluster size than 512 bytes.
>
>
> > It can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files,
> > but it gives you the ability to use all the space on your
> > drive.
>
>
> No it doesn't. No cluster size lets you use "all the space on
> your drive." Smaller cluster sizes let you use more of it, but
> "all" isn't possible.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:59:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

In news:eIU28OTgFHA.2880@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
Prabhat <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> typed:

> Hi Ken,
>
> You are right. That is the reason I asked how do I convert the
> FAT32
> Partitions (D:, E: etc. As My C: - The XP Partition is already
> 4K
> NTFS) to 4K NTFS without loosing Data.
> Please suggest.


Read http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm which talks about the
issue regarding cluster size.



Also note that conversion is a big step, affecting everything on
your drive. When you take such a big step, no matter how
unlikely, it is always possible that something could go wrong.
For that reason, it's prudent to make sure you have a backup of
anything you can't afford to lose before beginning.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:o ervRFLgFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> In news:75237028-FADF-49DA-854B-28BBED68129C@microsoft.com,
>> Manny Borges <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> typed:
>>
>>> About that4 k and 512byte cluster size reported.
>>>
>>> I am going to make an assumption that is the only one that
>>> makes
>>> sense. Either A: you did a convert of C: and a straight
>>> format
>>> of the
>>> others, or you used a third party utility to do theother
>>> three
>>> partitions.
>>>
>>> 512B is a better cluster size than 4K. It is smaller and more
>>> efficient.
>>
>>
>> More efficient with regard to wasting less space to cluster
>> overhang (or "slack"), but it requires extra I/O and can
>> result
>> in considerably poorer performance. Especially in these days
>> of
>> very inexpensive hard drives, worrying about a small
>> difference
>> in waste due to the amount of slack is counterproductive.
>>
>> The total amount of slack on your drive is roughly half the
>> cluster size times the number of files. Even if one has as
>> many
>> as 500,000 files, that's 128,000,00 bytes of slack for 256byte
>> clusters, and 1GB for 4K clusters. So the savings with
>> 512-byte
>> clusters is 7/8 of a GB (probably less, because most people
>> won't
>> have as many as 500,000 files).
>>
>> These days hard drives sell for $1 US per GB, or less. I saw
>> an
>> ad just this morning for a 160GB drive on sale for $40, or
>> $.25 a
>> GB. The savings by using the smaller clusters is well under
>> $1's
>> worth of disk space. For almost everyone, that's
>> insignificant;
>> far better to worry about the performance implications of
>> smaller
>> clusters. 4K is a much better cluster size than 512 bytes.
>>
>>
>>> It can lead to more fragmentation if you have large files,
>>> but it gives you the ability to use all the space on your
>>> drive.
>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. No cluster size lets you use "all the space on
>> your drive." Smaller cluster sizes let you use more of it, but
>> "all" isn't possible.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:41:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi, I will also try to get details about the NTFS Compression - Its
Advantages and Disadvantages etc etc.
Thanks for the Info.Prabhat

> If your files are compressible compression gives you fwere fragments,
> also. Think about it. Life's full of tradeoffs. You could experiment
> and benchmark but I doubt you'd see any performance difference.
>
> I had an application reading GB-sized files containing only numbers
> that was bottlenecked on I-O. NTFS compression reduced the file size
> by a factor of 10 and sped the application significantly. YMMV
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:43:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

So glad someone else has seen this also.

I have been saying for a long time that the CPU compressing and
decompressing a smaller file is speedier than the hard drive reading/writing
the original larger file. The hard drive is the slowest peripheral in the
data chain. RAM, CPU, FSB - they all are many times faster that a hard
drive. And they run at their specified speeds constantly. A hard drive has
"moments" of greater speed in bursts.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D adrq7$22b$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <ODhBvLTgFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> Prabhat <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will be more
>>> space
>>> efficient.
>>>
>>> And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than 4K cluster
>>size.
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for the Info.
>>I wanted to go for Good Performance (Not spece efficient - because now
>>storage media is becomming less price) and Of course LESS Fragements. So I
>>sould go for 4K instead of 512bytes.
>>
>>Thanks
>>Prabhat
>>
>>
>
>
> If your files are compressible compression gives you fwere fragments,
> also. Think about it. Life's full of tradeoffs. You could experiment
> and benchmark but I doubt you'd see any performance difference.
>
> I had an application reading GB-sized files containing only numbers
> that was bottlenecked on I-O. NTFS compression reduced the file size
> by a factor of 10 and sped the application significantly. YMMV
>
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:o mL$ZqagFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
Richard Urban <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> typed:

> So glad someone else has seen this also.
>
> I have been saying for a long time that the CPU compressing and
> decompressing a smaller file is speedier than the hard drive
> reading/writing the original larger file.


My usual answer is "it depends." Here's some text I've posted on
this subject:

"There's a tradeoff involved. It takes time to compress and
uncompress a file each time you use it, and that slows you down.
But a compressed file is smaller and can be read and written
faster, and that speeds you up.

Which factor is more significant depends on the relative speeds
of your CPU and disk drive, but on most modern computers, it's
probably a near wash."


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup




> The hard drive is the
> slowest peripheral in the data chain. RAM, CPU, FSB - they all
> are
> many times faster that a hard drive. And they run at their
> specified
> speeds constantly. A hard drive has "moments" of greater speed
> in
> bursts.
>
> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:D adrq7$22b$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <ODhBvLTgFHA.2372@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
>> Prabhat <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Higher fragmentation if 512K clusters are used, but it will
>>>> be more
>>>> space
>>>> efficient.
>>>>
>>>> And NTFS compression does not work on drives with less than
>>>> 4K
>>>> cluster size.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the Info.
>>> I wanted to go for Good Performance (Not spece efficient -
>>> because
>>> now storage media is becomming less price) and Of course LESS
>>> Fragements. So I sould go for 4K instead of 512bytes.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Prabhat
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> If your files are compressible compression gives you fwere
>> fragments,
>> also. Think about it. Life's full of tradeoffs. You could
>> experiment
>> and benchmark but I doubt you'd see any performance
>> difference.
>>
>> I had an application reading GB-sized files containing only
>> numbers
>> that was bottlenecked on I-O. NTFS compression reduced the
>> file size
>> by a factor of 10 and sped the application significantly. YMMV
>>
>>
>> --
>> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
>>
>> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:40:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion. Prabhat

>
> Read http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm which talks about the
> issue regarding cluster size.
>
>
>
> Also note that conversion is a big step, affecting everything on
> your drive. When you take such a big step, no matter how
> unlikely, it is always possible that something could go wrong.
> For that reason, it's prudent to make sure you have a backup of
> anything you can't afford to lose before beginning.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 4:40:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

In news:o Q$u0ofgFHA.1444@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
Prabhat <not_a_mail@hotmail.com> typed:

> Hi, Thanks for the suggestion. Prabhat


You're welcome. Glad to help.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup


>> Read http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm which talks about the
>> issue regarding cluster size.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also note that conversion is a big step, affecting everything
>> on
>> your drive. When you take such a big step, no matter how
>> unlikely, it is always possible that something could go wrong.
>> For that reason, it's prudent to make sure you have a backup
>> of
>> anything you can't afford to lose before beginning.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
!