Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations wOOdy-Soft on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
NW3.12 volume question? 1
- Thread starter YTL
- Start date
-
1
- #2
JockMullin
MIS
Hi, Gary.
4K blocksize makes most efficient use of disk space. If you have a lot of small files that might be a consideration. If you have relatively large files then it won't make much difference.
4K blocksize means twice as many blocks as 8K for the same volume size, which means twice as many FAT entries which means caching the FAT will take more memory. If you are tight on memory or have to support large or many volumes then go with a larger blocksize.
In theory having a block size in accord with typical disk data request size should improve disk performance and optimize cache usage. However nowadays with memory cheap and disk drives with built in chaching that is much less of a consideration, unless you are mirroring slow IDE drives or have a very high rate of disk start i/o's.
Personally, I usually go with 8K.
Jock
4K blocksize makes most efficient use of disk space. If you have a lot of small files that might be a consideration. If you have relatively large files then it won't make much difference.
4K blocksize means twice as many blocks as 8K for the same volume size, which means twice as many FAT entries which means caching the FAT will take more memory. If you are tight on memory or have to support large or many volumes then go with a larger blocksize.
In theory having a block size in accord with typical disk data request size should improve disk performance and optimize cache usage. However nowadays with memory cheap and disk drives with built in chaching that is much less of a consideration, unless you are mirroring slow IDE drives or have a very high rate of disk start i/o's.
Personally, I usually go with 8K.
Jock
Interesting...I inherited a NW 3.12 server w/ 3 volumes. The first volume (sys - 469MB) is configured with a 4K block size. The second volume (2 gigs) is configured with 32K blocks and the third (4 gigs) is configured as 64K blocks. The server has 128 MB of ram. I never understood why the previous IT guy did this.
I am in the process of upgrading to a new server with two 37 gig SCSI drives. The partitions will be 469 MB, 18.5 Gigs, and 12 Gigs respectively. The new server has 512 MB of ECC memory. Should the block size on the two larger partitions be configured as 64K? Right now I set them up the same as the old server.
Thanks.
I am in the process of upgrading to a new server with two 37 gig SCSI drives. The partitions will be 469 MB, 18.5 Gigs, and 12 Gigs respectively. The new server has 512 MB of ECC memory. Should the block size on the two larger partitions be configured as 64K? Right now I set them up the same as the old server.
Thanks.
- Status