Improving disk performance

[keith_leitch]

Anybody buy this warning from http://forums.techguy.org/multimedia/475...-size.html

"It is not recommended to screw around with the NTFS cluster size. One issue is that many disk utilities will have problems it you increase the size. Also, it really doesn't do anything significant for yoiur performance. "

[keith_leitch]

Opinions: Is it better to keep recordings in physical partition 0 of a disk, because of their frequent access, or in higher partitions because of their large cluster size?

[steeb]

Personally I would never partition a disk unless you really need to. Why have you?

[Reddwarf]

That warning is absolute nonsens! I'v been working with computers since long before the PC was invented, and I'v been with both Windows and it's predesessor OS/2, and I'v NEVER encountred any problems due to changing cluster size. In fact, if you are dealing with large files (sevral gigs), it gives you moderate to much better performance, especially when writing the file.

So don't panic, follow my advice (and the other advice in this thread that are good).

[ilovejedd]

Anybody buy this warning from http://forums.techguy.org/multimedia/475...-size.html

"It is not recommended to screw around with the NTFS cluster size. One issue is that many disk utilities will have problems it you increase the size. Also, it really doesn't do anything significant for yoiur performance. "

Nope, not really. Perhaps the poster hasn't experienced any benefits but you can quickly notice the difference when recording 4 HD shows at once, particularly if you've only got a 5400RPM laptop drive.

[keith_leitch]

Personally I would never partition a disk unless you really need to. Why have you?

There have been lots of reasons discussed earlier in the thread. Lower fragmentation, optimisation of cluster sizes for different purposes, quicker seek times for frequent-use files (like Windows and the swap file) in partition 0.

I actually haven't partitioned the large drives, yet, but I intend to.

[Reddwarf]

Personally I would never partition a disk unless you really need to. Why have you?

WHAT!!!!

You HAVE to partition a disk in order to be able to create a logical drive and format it with a filesystem. If you don't want to do it, Windows will do it for you. But you need at least one partition or the disk is useless. Well, I remember that back in 1970's some IBM mainframe computers used raw disks for storing data, but they quickly found out that it was feasable with a filesystem.

So, can those who don't really know what they'r talking about please keep quiet?

[keith_leitch]

You HAVE to partition a disk in order to be able to create a logical drive and format it with a filesystem.

I think he meant to ask why we would want to partition two or more spaces. Grammatically, a "partition" can't exist unless it is dividing two spaces; one "partition" really means two sections. It's the technology strutters that have liberally adopted the word to mean, literally, "the place between partitions". I've always understood what it means in disk-speak, but the misuse of the term has always bothered me.

Regardless, we are all here to learn from each other's opinions.

[Reddwarf]

In disk terms, a partition is a space where you can put logical drives, and no operating system can format without a logical drive defined. In DOS days, when we used Fdisk one had to do both operations manually, but later partition managers (as well the buildt-in in windows) creates a logical drive autimatically once you create a partition.

As for dividing a disk in seval pieces, there are lots of good reasons for doing that, most of them are already mentioned in this thread.

Do not misinterpret me, it was not a personal attach on anyone, I'm just saying: Don't try to give advice if you do not really know what you are saying. We shall all learn from each other's expirience, NOT from each other's beleives (or superstition, which there are lots of)

[keith_leitch]

I think Steeb knows what a partition is. He just meant to ask why I want two (or three or four).