Last modified on Skip to: content search login. Knowledge Base Toggle local menu Menus About the team. Knowledge Base Search. Log in. Because of this limitation, cluster sizes vary depending on partition size. Basically, a small partition uses small cluster sizes while a large partition uses large cluster sizes. In a world where bigger is better and size does matter, you might assume that a big hard drive with huge cluster sizes is the way to go.
If you have a tiny file and a huge cluster, the portion of that cluster unused by the file is wasted. What makes this fact even scarier is that, as I mentioned before, 2 KB is the smallest size that a cluster can be.
This means if you want to use 2-KB clusters, your partition size can be no more than MB 2-KB clusters multiplied by 65, total clusters equals ,, bytes, or MB. As the size of your partition increases, the cluster sizes double to accommodate it.
Easy to follow. No jargon. Pictures helped. Didn't match my screen. Incorrect instructions. Too technical. Not enough information. Not enough pictures. Any additional feedback? One is to track all the software I have on each of my two PC's.
The other is to keep track of stocks and options for investing purposes. These are, I would claim, quite "normal". On this whole issue of average file size I was not taking issue with you using it in your calculations. I was taking issue with the fact that you implicitly assumed access to the whole average-sized file in your calculations. I should have said that it is not all that rare for a user to need just a few bytes from the " last " cluster. It is no more likely to happen with a 4 KB cluster than with a 64 KB cluster.
But that will have an impact only for a program that is racing through a significant amount of data. However, as I have said before a human user is the slowest part of the system.
That is why I was careful to say "lay user not a programmer ". RAM is "cheap" in absolute terms but not in relative terms. And, because it is much more limited compared to disk space it is much more "expensive" in terms of performance.
Whether the "pending" clusters, i. A buffer of a given size will hold 16 times fewer clusters than 4 KB clusters. While the OS will have to do 16 times fewer reads to fill up the buffer it will very probably need to do many more re-reads for the overwritten "least recently used" cluster.
How many more will depend on usage. The same would go for a paging file of any given size. But the very first thing an app does is wait for RAM resources to become available just to get started. During that time the much faster chipset is not doing anything and its speed does not matter. It is those wait times in the RAM bottleneck that kill performance. But free RAM available for apps is. RAM is really the bottleneck that most often kills performance. I have looked at all these things and done careful detailed calculations during my 30 years in System and databse design many many times.
I still stand by what I said: "You have to take the whole system This was on a mainframe with much faster clock speeds and much more RAM. Also bear in mind these were only 16 KB records, not 64 KB.
The computer slowed down to a crawl because the RAM was choked up. I have worked on or known of other cases like that although none of them were quite so drastic. About smaller cluster sizes, you can go down to bytes. I think those too will give problems to the lay user. I reason that MS chose 4 KB as the default for the lay user after careful thought and research. It would be nice to know the actual effects of smaller clusters but unfortunately I am not a man of leisure.
It has been interesting but I have already spent too many hours on this topic. I think I will end it here. God, I'm thirsty! Feel free to not reply.. PS is there a generic formula for tweaking IDE's scsi's and sata's? Thank You. Nodsu , I think we've flogged this virtually to death. I will end this with just three last, really very last, comments.
First, I wasn't engaging in salesperson speak for more RAM. Just the opposite. You cannot add more RAM beyond that - no matter how cheap it is. That is precisely what makes RAM such a critical bottleneck.
I have been careful to distinguish between them. Third, I could not add all the options data to my investment database because of the 2 GB limit for MS Access databases. I am thinking of re-doing it in Oracle for that reason. I am also thinking of setting up a couple more MS Access databases to keep track of other things I'm interested in.
With respect, I will end this here. We now seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and not wanting to "admit defeat". And, we are essentially going round and round the same things. Samstoned , I thought your previous question was just a rhetorical question that seemed to argue against cluster sizes greater than 4 KB.
I didn't realize it was a real question. Yes, you should have started a separate thread, really. But I will answer it briefly here. Generally, defraggers require a minimum amount of real free space to function.
The amount of free space shown in the disk's Properties panel is a bit misleading. It does not include the space taken up by Norton Protect. If the files in Norton Protect if you have that, or something like that, active take up enough space then the defragger may not have enough real free space to operate.
0コメント