Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

SSD Allocation Size For Partition


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 jimlau

jimlau

  • Members
  • 127 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:34 PM

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:08 AM

I have a 60GB SSD that I want to keep sequencer samples on. I have about 35,000 files than are less than 20 KB in size. If I partition the drive with 64 KB allocation size, it looks like I lose about 1.8 GB of space.

Speed of access of the data on this drive is pretty important.

Should I lower the allocation size?

Aso, I think my SSD drives capacity went from 59.5 to 55.7 GB. Not used or unused, but overall capacity. There is no operating system on the drive, just files. Is that apparent loss in capacity a result of using too big of an allocation size?

Thanks.

Edited by jimlau, 03 April 2012 - 11:50 AM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 James Litten

James Litten

    Ԁǝǝ˥q


  • BC Advisor
  • 1,946 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:03:34 PM

Posted 03 April 2012 - 12:35 PM

Hi

A few questions :)

Is it formatted NTFS?

Why do you want that cluster size (I use 4k on my SSD's)?

What OS are you running on the machine the disk is in (so I can suggest tools if you need to check anything specifically)?

Here's an example of one of my 60GB SSD drives

62417919 KB total disk space.
45361824 KB in 138463 files.
74300 KB in 139904 indexes.
0 KB in bad sectors.
518971 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
16462824 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit.
15604479 total allocation units on disk.
4115706 allocation units available on disk.

You'll notice 4k cluster size and about 700MB in indexes and system files (for NTFS not Windows)

One thing you can check easily is to open the disk in Windows Explorer and since it sounds like you don't have any hidden or system files on it (except for small ones that windows may make) you can select all files and folders on the disk, right click and choose properties and look at the difference between
Size:
and
Size On Disk:
to see the effect of your cluster size and if that is where the missing space is.

James

#3 jimlau

jimlau
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 127 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:34 PM

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:41 AM

yes, using the NTFS option, as it was the only 1 given.

i'm using windows 7 64-bit. i see as is i am losing 3gb because of my 64k allocation size. it was recommended to me by someone who uses music sequencers like i do for it to go fastest, even tho capacity goes down. but i may cut it now seeing how much i lose.

if my computer needs to read files that are over 64k in size, how much slower would it respond with an allocation that is smaller, say 16k?

thanks.

#4 James Litten

James Litten

    Ԁǝǝ˥q


  • BC Advisor
  • 1,946 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:03:34 PM

Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:33 PM

Thanks for the answers. I was curious because I thought it might have something to do with audio files.

I was always told that with an SSD the smaller the files are, the closer read speeds get to a platter drive when you deal with a lot of files sequentially. It is always faster than a platter drive but it gets less faster (is that proper grammar?) when it is a lot of small files especially less than 4k sized files. Larger files are always lightning fast.

I would keep the larger cluster size if someone who works with those types of files thinks that helps performance. Regardless, you will be running faster than a platter drive and it will make a huge difference in lossless samples or anything else that is raw and not at all compressed.

Prices are always coming down on SSDs so unless you think it is going to become an issue before you can afford to add another or larger SSD then I would not worry about losing 10% of the space to get a performance increase.

Hope this helps
James




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users