Best stripe size for RAID 0 to install Vista on?

I've done research on this for two days, and all of my questions are
cleared except this last one. My post isn't a question that requires
someone to explain everything from beginning.

A couple simple conclusions:
1. small stripe size for random access (OS, applications), large
stripe size for data (large files, storage).
2. you would get optimal performance if stripe size = cluster size, or
(# of drive * stripe size) = cluster size

My question is, the default cluster size for Windows OS is 4k and I
believe it stays like that since Win 2000 to now for a reason, the MS
engineers must have determined this is the best way. OK then let me
assume I don't change that, although a lot of ppl suggest changing it
to 16k.

Why had I never seen anyone suggesting 4k as stripe size? From all
I've read, it's either 16k or 32k. If the concept of "stripe size =
cluster size" is correct, wouldn't it be optimal to set 4k strip on a
disk that is formatted by Windows installation CD, which cluster is
4k?

If 4k option is available on the RAID controller (ICH9R), is there any
reason I don't do 4k? Is there any downside to do 4K? Is it
considered TOO SMALL and will increase the burden of RAID controller
and reduced the overall performance?

I don't see the link between stripe/cluster size.
The cluster size is just the smallest size that any bit of data will take
up.
If you have a 4K cluster size and the data is only 1K, it marks the whole 4K
cluster used.
If you had an 8 or 16K cluster size, there is a little more wasted space for
those bits of data that are smaller than the cluster.
That is one cluster per file that may not be fully utilized.
If you have hundreds of thousands of files, the 'wasted' HDD space may be an
issue, but with such huge and cheap drives available, I don't think it is an
issue for a personal use machine.
If you were running a data farm maybe it would help marginally.

--
A Professional Amateur...If anyone knew it all, none of would be here!

Change Alpha to Numeric to reply

"achen" <> wrote in message
news:d0112c48-ccdb-4e37-bc82-...
> I've done research on this for two days, and all of my questions are
> cleared except this last one. My post isn't a question that requires
> someone to explain everything from beginning.
>
> A couple simple conclusions:
> 1. small stripe size for random access (OS, applications), large
> stripe size for data (large files, storage).
> 2. you would get optimal performance if stripe size = cluster size, or
> (# of drive * stripe size) = cluster size
>
> My question is, the default cluster size for Windows OS is 4k and I
> believe it stays like that since Win 2000 to now for a reason, the MS
> engineers must have determined this is the best way. OK then let me
> assume I don't change that, although a lot of ppl suggest changing it
> to 16k.
>
> Why had I never seen anyone suggesting 4k as stripe size? From all
> I've read, it's either 16k or 32k. If the concept of "stripe size =
> cluster size" is correct, wouldn't it be optimal to set 4k strip on a
> disk that is formatted by Windows installation CD, which cluster is
> 4k?
>
> If 4k option is available on the RAID controller (ICH9R), is there any
> reason I don't do 4k? Is there any downside to do 4K? Is it
> considered TOO SMALL and will increase the burden of RAID controller
> and reduced the overall performance?
>
>
>

In article <5D33B122-F00F-4A52-A57D->,
Not Me <> wrote:
>I don't see the link between stripe/cluster size.
>The cluster size is just the smallest size that any bit of data will take
>up.
>If you have a 4K cluster size and the data is only 1K, it marks the whole 4K
>cluster used.
>If you had an 8 or 16K cluster size, there is a little more wasted space for

In this context it has to do with the way the RAID software writes
(and reads) data to the array.