[24hoursupport] Re: 1024 cylinder limit and Partition Magic

  • From: Fuzzy Logic <fuzzman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: 24hoursupport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 12:07:05 -0400 (EDT)

Here's the long and the short of it.  NTFS uses the same concept as FAT,
so partition size does matter to some degree.  Note that if you converted
to NTFS from FAT (or FAT32), you have a 512 byte cluster size.  That is a
known limitation of the converter utility.

Having a partition on a different partition on the same disk has no effect
on performance, negative or positive, as compared to having it in the same

PM can allow you to create partitions with a different cluster size, I
believe, but it cannot change the cluster size for NTFS partitions, as far
as I know (I haven't used the very latest version, though.)

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.
Cras amet qui numquam amavit, quique amavit cras plus amet.
Uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum.

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Ron Allen wrote:

> Hello Joe,
> >You are correct that, in a multiboot system, windows needs that first
> >partition to be FAT and in the first part of the drive. But with only one
> >OS installed I'm not even sure why PM warns you. Presumably you
> >partitioned this drive so you could image the C: drive so you can't lose
> much if
> >disaster strikes (wouldn't be any other good reason to partition).
> OK, educate me. I partition my drives mainly to gain efficiency and reduce
> cluster waste and overhead. I settled awhile back, when I was still using
> FAT32 under Windows 9x, on 8K clusters as a good middle ground between
> cluster size and overall partition size. When I moved to XP Pro and the
> NTFS system, I kept the same settings mainly because it was convenient.
> Does the cluster size and overhead depend on cluster size under NTFS as
> well? I will readily admit that I have not taken the time to research this
> as well as I perhaps should have before switching. I switched to NTFS
> mainly for the the ability to use mounted partitions and the additional
> security features offered, specifically allowing only authorized users into
> certain directories (I don't want my 5 year old nephew who sometimes will
> play games when I am not here to supervise having access to the system
> files or anything else that might cause grief if he got to playing around).
> Regardless, I'd say there are excellent reasons for partitioning under FAT
> or FAT32... do they not apply under NTFS?
> >P.S. Having that page file on a different partition doesn't help
> >performance. It has to be on a different physical disk. Even then you have
> >to have too little RAM for it to be particularly noticeable.
> Yes, of course. The partition the page file is on is also on a physically
> separate drive. I have 4 large drives in my system, two on the primary EIDE
> controller and 2 on a Promise EIDE controller I added. Under FAT32, I had
> all 25 available drive letters filled. When I then wanted to add a card
> reader for my digital camera, I needed yet another drive letter. Mounted
> partitions allowed me to free up drive letters so now I have only have
> drives C:\, D:\, and G:\ assigned to hard drive partitions (G:\ is the page
> file partition, E:\ and F:\ are my DVD and CD-Writer).
> I agree that the increase in performance on my system, which has 256M RAM,
> from having the page file on a separate partition is negligible. But every
> little bit counts :)
> Thanks for the answer.
> Ron

- Users can unsubscribe from this list by sending email to 
24hoursupport-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the 
Subject field OR by logging into the Web interface at

Other related posts: