N
Neal at Spectdar Computing
I've always advocated a smaller than default cluster size than XP's 4096k,
usually settling on a 2048k size. The reason is less wasted space and ever so
slightly better performance. I know Vista is a little slow so I started
playing around. Got out the trusty electronic stopwatch and came up with the
following results:
All tests done after reaching a stable desktop
First test: Start, settings, control panel, system, device manager:
4096kb = 3.00136
2048kb = 3.00288
1024kb = 3.15192
512kb = 4.27100
Custom size of 8192kb = 2.77703
I got similar results with other tasks. This tells me that Vista addresses
larger blocks of information. Logical since 64 bits are theoretically larger
than 32.
Now my question is: is Microsoft planning to increase the default cluster
size on a Vista format?
The tests were run on an Asus A8N-E, 1 gig DDR400, Athlon 3700+, 250gb SATA
hard drive, using build 5219.
usually settling on a 2048k size. The reason is less wasted space and ever so
slightly better performance. I know Vista is a little slow so I started
playing around. Got out the trusty electronic stopwatch and came up with the
following results:
All tests done after reaching a stable desktop
First test: Start, settings, control panel, system, device manager:
4096kb = 3.00136
2048kb = 3.00288
1024kb = 3.15192
512kb = 4.27100
Custom size of 8192kb = 2.77703
I got similar results with other tasks. This tells me that Vista addresses
larger blocks of information. Logical since 64 bits are theoretically larger
than 32.
Now my question is: is Microsoft planning to increase the default cluster
size on a Vista format?
The tests were run on an Asus A8N-E, 1 gig DDR400, Athlon 3700+, 250gb SATA
hard drive, using build 5219.