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

  • From: Joe Parker <joe.parker@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: 24hoursupport@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:22:39 -0400

>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

Sort of. In general, you want 4k clusters in NTFS regardless of partition 
size. I think this is the default, unlike in FAT where it would change 
depending on the size of the partition. As Fuzzy said, you'll get stuck 
with 512 byte clusters if you convert, but with PM you can choose easily. 
No reason to partition to try to force a specific cluster size, and as 
you've found out, every reason NOT to (shortage of drive letters).

Another reason I liked to partition in Win9x was stability. The blasted 
file system might take a nosedive with no notice and wipe out an entire 
partition when it did. Not a big worry with a decent OS/filesystem like 

btw, I've taken to naming all my extra drives with low letters. My 2nd eide 
drive is M: (one big 40G partition). My 1394 removables start at N: and go 
down (80G, 160G single partitions). This way I don't have to worry about a 
system automatically naming a drive the same letter. So far the lowest I've 
ever had a system go by itself was J: so I figure I'm safe. For a while. :)

- 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: