Cluster size

hello
can any body tells me what should be cluster size during partiton of sata hdd for both ntfs and fat32
PENTIUM 2.4GHZ 800MHZ FSB HTT ENABLED
MSI 865PE NEO2-PS (D.O.T DISABLED)
2x256 KINGSTON DDR 400MHZ 3-3-3-8 (PAT TURBO)
INNO 3D 5900XT 128MB @ 450/850(REGULAR OVERCLOCKING)
LG T710BH 17' BRIGHT VIEW MONITOR
80GB SEAGATE SATA HARD DISK
SAMSUNG DVD+CD-RW 16x52x32x52
SAMSUNG CD-RW 52x24x52
REALTECK ALC 655 SOUND
REALTECK LAN CARD
ST-LABS USB 2.0 PCI CARD
US ROBOTICS 56K EXTERNAL MODEM
PIXEL VIEW PLAY TV PRO HD
CREATIVE INSPIRE 5200 5.1 SPEAKER
CODGEN 400WATT PPOWER SUPPLY
WINDOWS XP PRO SP1
WINDOWS XP HOME SP1

Article about NTFS
Article 2 on NTFS
NTFS = 4KB, 16 clusters for 2049MB or more
Articles on FAT32
FAT 32:
Drive Size
Less then 512MB----------512 Bytes Default Cluster Size
> = 32GB-------------32 Kilobytes Default Cluster Size

Similar Messages

How do I retrieve binary cluster data from a file without the presense of the cluster size in the data?

Hey guys, I'm trying to read a binary data file created by a C++ program that didn't append sizes to the structures that were used when writing out the data. I know the format of the structures and have created a cluster typedef in LabView. However the unflatten from string function expects to see additional bytes of data identifying the size of the cluster in the file. This just plain bites! I need to retrieve this data and have it formatted correctly without doing it manually for each and every single element. Please Help!
Message Edited by AndyP123 on 06-04-2008 11:42 AM

Small update. I have fixed size arrays in the clusters of data in the file and I have been using arrays in my typedefs in LabView and just defining x number of indexes in the arrays and setting them as the default value under Data Operations. LabView may maintain the default values, but it still treats an array as an unknown size data type. This is what causes LabView to expect the cluster size to be appended to the file contents during an unflatten. I can circumvent this in the most simplest of cases by using clusters of the same type of data in LabView to represent a fixed size array in the file. However, I can't go around using clusters of data to represent fixed size arrays BECAUSE I have several multi-dimentional arrays of data in the file. To represent that as a cluster I would have to add a single value for every element to such a cluster and make sure they are lined up sequentially according to every dimension of the array. That gets mighty hairy, mighty fast.
EDIT: Didn't see that other reply before I went and slapped this in here. I'll try that trick and let you know how it works.......
Message Edited by AndyP123 on 06-04-2008 12:11 PM

Maximum cluster size?

Hi all,
I'm using LV 7.1 and am trying to access a function in a DLL. The function takes a pointer to a data structure that is large and complex. I have calculated that the structure is just under 15kbytes.
I have built the structure as a cluster and then attempted to pass the cluster into the call library function node with this parameter set as adapt to type. I get memory error messages and when analysing the size of the cluster I am producing it appears to be much smaller than required.
I have also tried creating an array and passing that but I think that won't work as it needs to be a fixed size of array which can only be acheived, according to what I've read, by changing it to a cluster and this is limited to a size of 256.
Does anybody have a suggestion of how to overcome this?
If any more detail is required then I'm happy to supply.
Dave.

John.P wrote:
Hi Dave,
You have already received some good advice from the community but I wanted to offer my opinion.
I am unsure as to why the cluster size will not exceed 45, my only suggestion is to try using a type cast node as this is the suggested method for converting from array to cluster with greater than 256 elements.
If this still does not work then in this case I would recommend that you do use a wrapper DLL, it is more work but due to the complexity of the cluster you are currently trying to create I would suggest this is a far better option.
Have a look at this KB article about wrapper DLL's.
Hope this helps,
John P
John, I am having a hard time converting an array of greater than 256 elements to a cluster. I attempted to use the type cast node you suggested and didn't have any luck. Please see the attached files... I’m sure I’m doing something wrong. The .txt file has a list of 320 elements. I want to run the VI so that in the end I have a cluster containing equal number of integer indicators/elements inside. But more importantly, I don't want to have to build a cluster of 320 elements. I'd like to just change the number of elements in the .txt file and have the cluster automatically be populated with the correct number of elements and their values. No more, no less. One of the good things about the convert array to cluster was that you could tell the converter how many elements to expect and it would automatically populate the cluster with that number of elements (up to 256 elements only). Can the type cast node do the same thing? Do you have any advice? I posted this question with more detail to my application at the link below... no luck so far.
http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=170&thread.id=409766&view=by_date_ascending&page=1
Message Edited by PhilipJoeP on 05-20-2009 06:11 PM
Attachments:
cluster_builder.vi ‏9 KB
config.txt ‏1 KB

Array to Cluster, Automate cluster size?

I often use the Array to Cluster VI to quickly change an array of data into a cluster of data that I can then connect to a Waveform Chart. Sometimes the number of plots can be different which results in extra plots (full of zeros) on the graph, or missing plots if the array is larger than the current cluster size. I know I can right-click on the node and set the cluster size (up to 256) manually. I could also use a case structure with as many Array to Cluster nodes as I need, set them individually and wire an Array Size to the case structure selector but that's kind of a PITA.
My question is whether or not anyone knows a way to control the cluster size value programatically. It seems that if I can right-click it and do it manually there must be some way to automate it but I sure can't figure it out. It would be nice if you could simply wire your desired value right into an optional input on the node itself. Any ideas will be much appreciated.
Using LabVIEW: 7.1.1, 8.5.1 & 2013
Solved!
Go to Solution.

I'm under the impression it's impossible. See this idea for related discussion.
Tim Elsey
LabVIEW 2010, 2012
Certified LabVIEW Architect

Raid-0 Stripe & Cluster Size

I just ordered 2 10k RPM Raptor S-ATA Drives from newegg, they should arrive shortly. I plan to configure my system with them as Raid-0 for increased performance, I just read the "Raid Setup Guide 865/875 LSR/FIS2R Rev 1.01" by Vango and it seems that my Mobo can be configured as Raid-0 with either the Intel ICH5R Controller or the promise controller.
Will use promise as my raid controller, it seems it's faster , now i got another question.
What about stripe size/cluster size? my research is giving me too many setting suggestions with all very different settings, can't decide on what to do. Can someone suggest some good setting, Intel raid manual suggest a 128 KB stripe for best performance, and said nothing about cluster size. Vango posted somewhere he used a 64kb for Stripe, but no info on cluster size.
I will be using 2 36 gb WB Raptors in raid-0 as my main and only windows array (disk) (Will install windows and apps+games to it) then use PATA drive for backups and movie storage. My computer is used mostly for working with office, creation of web pages, playing Everquest (big game), and watching video (divx movies). I use WinXP Pro Sp1.
Can someone suggest some general setting on stripe/cluster size that give good performance this kind of usage? what is the easiest (best) way to change the 4k default cluster size on the array after i get windows installed to it? do I bother with changing the cluster size? I got partition magic and other softtware available to do this, but dunno what's the best procedure to do this.
Thanks in Advance

I've always just used the 4K cluster size that Windows creates if you use NTFS. I honestly don't think this makes a big difference. If you want a different size, use PM to format the drive that way before installing XP. I would recommend against converting from one size to another. Did this once and ended up with all my files labeled in DOS 8.3 format. (this was NOT good for my 1000+ MP3's)
I use 64k stripe size as a compromise. My research showed that people were getting the "best scores" using a small stripe size. This seemed to come at the cost of CPU usage going up and I'm unconvinced these scores relate much to how I actually use my HDD's. They say if all your files are 128K and bigger you don't need a smaller stripe size. If you're using the Raid as your XP drive you'll actually have lots of small files so I would recommend something smaller than 128K. Maybe try 32k?
Let us know how it goes.

Do we need to format data and log files with 64k cluster size for sql server 2012?

Do we need to format data and log files with 64k cluster size for sql server 2012?
Does this best practice still applies to sql server 2012 & 2014?

Yes. The extent size of SQL Server data files, and the max log block size have not changed with the new versions, so the guidance should remain the same.
Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine PM

Programmaticly change cluster size

I'm i'm facing the following problem, i want to display several plots in a chart, to do this i'm using a build to cluster function, because the source is an array with N items. The sollution i came up to, was not correct because the cluster has a fixed size and the array doesn't. Which results in 9 plots (default cluster size) and only N of them have to be displayed in the chart.
I included a part of my program. By which i hope it explains my problem a bit more. This subvi is executed X times and saves N value's to an array and after each run the array is converted into a cluster and is displayed in a chart.
So my question is, is it possible to programmatically change the cluster size, or is it possible to realise a chart which is updated during runtime with new value's.
Attachments:
Wavelength AnalyseAndSave.vi ‏208 KB

I figured it out by myself, havn't slept to mutch last night For those who are interested in my solution, here is what i did after the array is coming out from the forloop i reshaped it so that the dementions are the same as the number of plots i want to have, then i wired the output to a chart and it works

Does Administrator have to set cluster size during RAID 0+1,3 and 5 used according to Microsoft tech document?

Hi everyone,
I always thank you for providing helpful information in this forum.
As I got a plan to set hard drive for RAID 0+1,3 and 5. Therefore should I set cluster size under each RAID type according to the url which is provided by Microsoft Tech net. I mean I want to set the cluster size which is size by one time hard disk head
access.
The url is ....
https://support.microsoft.com/kb/140365
Thanks

Hi OlegSmirnovPetrov,
Additional,
on Win 2008 and later versions, disk partition alignment is enabled by default. On win 2k3 and earlier versions you need to enable ,
more information please refer the following KB:
1. Best practices for using dynamic disks on Windows Server 2003-based computers
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/816307
2. Disk Partition Alignment (Sector Alignment): Make the Case: Save Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jimmymay/archive/2009/05/08/disk-partition-alignment-
sector-alignment-make-the-case-with-this-template.aspx
3. General Hardware/OS/Network Guidelines for a SQL Box
4.http://blogs.msdn.com/b/cindygross/archive/2011/03/10/general-hardware-os-network-guidelines-for-a-sql-box.aspx (please refer Storage specifications)
5.Disk Partition Alignment Best Practices for SQL Server
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd758814.aspx
I’m glad to be of help to you!
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

Best Cluster Size for RAID 0

Hi all,
When I get my replacement SATA HDD back I will be creating another RAID 0 array. My Windows XP cluster size is 4K, but I have a choice when I am creating my RAID array. All hardware in Sig.
The system is being used mainly as a gaming machine, but I will be doing other things to with it also. Looking for the best balance (slightly in favour of the gaming, ).
I heard that the cluster size if the drive should match the cluster size of the RAID array. So if my drive cluster is 4K then i should set my RAID cluster size to 4K or should I set them higher.
any information is more than welcome,
Andrew
P.S. I did do a search through the forums, but could not find much recent information.

The "EASIEST" way to change your cluster size is to have a 3rd drive with Win XP on it....here is what you need to do.
1. Have 3rd drive with Win XP
2. Go to bios and change boot order to 3rd drive b4 Raid
3. Once in wondows goto "Disk Management" (as soon as you click on it you will have a window pop up and ask you to select drive and it will also want to know if you want to convert drive to a dynamic disk...I always choose no)
4. You will see your raid drives as 1 BIG drive..now all you do is right click on the drive and click partion...primary partition...set size...now is where you can choose cluster size...you will have 3 boxes to check off...
5. NTFS or FAT32...Volume Label....Cluster Size......
6. After you check all of that off then you click off quick format and Voila...you have done it now do same on rest of drives....
7. once you have setup all your partitons and selected cluster sizes...shutdown PC unplug 3rd drive...change boot order so CD rom will be a bootable device b4 raid device and you are good to go on a clean install....remember once you get into the window when setting up XP you have choices to format drives again and choose where XP get sinstalled ...choose to leave as is...no need to format again cuz it will default to 4k cluster again.....
let me know how this goes for ....I have been doing this trick now for a LONG time and I know for a fact that this is a fast and easy way...without using any 3rd party software.....
my advice to you is try 16/16 then 32/32

NTFS Cluster size is set at 4k instead of recommended 64k.

We have found that our partition is not aligned and need to get some
feedback on a few things.
Here are our numbers:
Starting partition offset = 32,256
Stripe Size = 128k (131,072)
Cluster size = 4k (4096)
We are experiencing high "Avg Queue length" and high "avg disk usage"
in windows performance monitor...
My question is this: How important is the NTFS cluster size at 4k. I know
the recommendation is 64k but how bad would a 4k cluster size ALSO
affect performance given we know that our partition is mis-aligned ?
Thanks..
Ld

> My question is this: How important is the NTFS cluster size at 4k. I know
> the recommendation is 64k but how bad would a 4k cluster size
It's very important from performance perspective, especially when you're facing a huge database and quantity of disks. 64K is the rule of thumb as cluster package size for SQL server, can be considered a minimum size of unit at least in this case. Imagine if it's cut down to 4K which is 1/16, then the disk arms need to do 16 times to grab the same amount of data.
> Starting partition offset = 32,256
>ALSO
> affect performance given we know that our partition is mis-aligned ?
Starting offset has a similar impact as allocation unit size does, but usually it only happens on old fashion storage device as far as I know, not sure maybe I'm wrong here. Last time an issue related to that I know was on HP EVA 5000 4 years ago, and after that starting offset value is part of initial optimization when it's being installed by storage vendor provided, no manual change from customer needed. But to be on the safe side, please do check with your storage vendor to make sure.
In either case of allocation unit size or starting offset size, it would be very difficult to change as long as it's set and has gone live in production environment, from either downtime or transition storage device.
Regards,

Read harddisk partition's cluster size

Is there a way to read the cluster size of a harddisk partition?
Are there different approaches necessary for different operating systems?
thx, cheers clownfish

clownfish wrote:
Is there a way to read the cluster size of a harddisk partition?Yes, but not not in plain Java, and nothing in the standard library.
Are there different approaches necessary for different operating systems?Yes, the native API will need to be used, which will vary between operating systems. Typically, the cluster size is given in sectors (as opposed to bytes).

Array to cluster with adjustable cluster size

Hi all
Here I have a dynamic 1D array and I need to convert it into cluster. So I use Array to Cluster function. But I notice that the cluster size is a fix value. How can I adjust the cluster size according to the 1D array size?
Anyone pls give advise..
Thanks....

I won't disagree with any of the previous posters, but would point out a conversion technique I just recently tried and found to work well for my own particular purposes. I've given the method a pretty good workout and not found any obvious flaws yet, but can't 100% guarantee the behavior in all settings.
Anyhow, I've got a fairly good sized project that includes quite a few similar but distinct clusters of booleans. Each has been turned into a typedef, complete with logical names for each cluster element. For some of the data processing I do, I need to iterate over each boolean element in a cluster, do some evaluations, and generate an output boolean cluster. I first structured the code to use the "Cluster to Array" primitive, then auto-index over the resulting array of booleans, perform the evaluations and auto-index an output array-of-booleans, then finally convert back using the "Array to Cluster" primitive. I, too, was kinda bothered by having to hardcode cluster sizes in there...
I found I could instead use the "Typecast" primitive to convert the output array back to my cluster. I simply fed the input cluster into the middle terminal to defin! the datatype. Then the output cluster is automatically the right size and right datatype.
This still is NOT an adjustable cluster size, but it had the following benefits:
1. If the size of my typedef'ed cluster changes during development by adding or removing boolean elements, none of the code breaks! I don't have to go searching through my code for all the "Array to Cluster" primitives, identifying the ones I need to inspect, and then manually changing the cluster size on them one at a time!
2. Some of my processing functions were quite similar to one another. This method allowed me to largely reuse code. I merely had to replace the input and output clusters with the appropriate new typedef. Again, no hardcoded cluster sizes hidden in "Array to Cluster" primitives, and no broken code.
Dunno if your situation is similar, but it gave me something similar to auto-sizing at programming time. (You should test the behavior when you feed arrays of the wrong size into the "Typecast" primitive. It worked for my app's needs, but you should make sure it's right for yours.)
-Kevin P.

FAT32 Cluster size?

I am trying to format my SD card to fat32 with cluster size set at 32kb is there anyway I can do this?

Maybe "mkfs.vfat -F 32 -S 32768"?

Large Cluster Size

I believe by default cluster size is limited to 436 members by default. We would like to increase this to about 550 temporarily. Can someone remind me of the setting to do this? Any critical drawbacks (I know its no ideal). Thanks in advance... Andrew.

There was some changes made in in some 3.7.1.x release to support large clusters. Previous there was some issues with the preferred MTU, which was 64K causing OOM in the Publisher/Receiver.

Cluster Size issues

Hi,
I am running SQL Server 2008 R2 on Windows Server 2008 R2. My databases are residing on a RAID5 configuration.
Recently I have had to replace one of the HDDs in the RAID with a different HDD. The result is that I now have 2 HDD with a physical and logical cluster size of 512 Bytes and 1 with 3072 Bytes physical and 512 Logical.
Since the rebuild, the databases and SQL have been fine. I could read and write to and from the databases and Backups had no issues either. Today however (2 months down the line of the RAID rebuild) I could no longer access the databases and backups did
not work either. I kept getting this error when trying to detach the database or backing it up:
TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio
Alter failed for Database 'dbname'. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=10.50.2500.0+((KJ_PCU_Main).110617-0038+)&EvtSrc=Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Smo.ExceptionTemplates.FailedOperationExceptionText&EvtID=Alter+Database&LinkId=20476
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo)
Cannot use file 'D:\dbname.MDF' because it was originally formatted with sector size 512 and is now on a volume with sector size 3072. Move the file to a volume with a sector size that is the same as or smaller than the original sector size.
Cannot use file 'D:\dblogname_1.LDF' because it was originally formatted with sector size 512 and is now on a volume with sector size 3072. Move the file to a volume with a sector size that is the same as or smaller than the original sector size.
Database 'dbname' cannot be opened due to inaccessible files or insufficient memory or disk space. See the SQL Server errorlog for details.
ALTER DATABASE statement failed. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 5178)
For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft+SQL+Server&ProdVer=10.50.2500&EvtSrc=MSSQLServer&EvtID=5178&LinkId=20476
BUTTONS:
OK
My Temporary solution to this was to move the DB to my C: drive and attach it from there. This is not ideal as I am losing the redundancy of the RAID.
Can anybody tell me if it is because of the hard drive with the larger sector size? (This is the only logical explanation i have) And why would it only happen now?
I am sorry if this is the wrong Forum for this question

Apparently it was not until recently that the database spilled over to that new disk. No, I don't too know much about RAIDs.
But it seems obvious that you need to make sure that all disks in the RAID have the same sector size.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, [email protected]

Cluster size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for