If this is the case, it will at least partially Help overcome the shortcomings of SSD (the price per GB is greatly increased).
Is there a way to determine the “cost” of a smaller allocation scale that is particularly related to seek time? Or is there any research or article suggesting to change the default value based on this new technology?
(Assuming the most even distribution of large and small program files, operating system files, data, mp3, text files, etc.)
The Hows and Whys of SSDs by Robert Hallock
I link to the 2nd Page, which contains a section discussing clusters and block sizes.
[…] The solution to the problem is to
increase the cluster size, for which< br> there are several advantages:
- Reduced file system complexity; less clusters means less to organize.
- Increased read and write speed as cluster size approaches parity with
block size.- Decreased slack space if the system is primarily composed of large
files.Yet increased cluster size is not a magic bullet for solid state disks , as most people have a mix of information. Games often contain a myriad of small files and operating systems are the sum of small files almost as a rule; yet movies, music, archives and MMOs are perfect candidates for enlarged cluster sizes. More frustrating than the anc hor of small clusters is the complicated process to get larger clusters under modern Windows operating systems. Such a feat requires premeditated use of programs like Acronis Disk Director which can increase cluster sizes prior to the installation of Windows. It is also possible to resize existing clusters , but such a procedure is accomplished with a frighteningly varied degree of success.
The recommended default allocation unit size when formatting the drive in the current setting is 4096 Bytes. I understand the basics of the advantages and disadvantages of larger and smaller sizes (performance improvement and space preservation) but it seems that the benefits of solid-state drives (seek time is much lower than hard drives) may cause the allocation to be much smaller. Size is not harmful
If this is the case, it will at least partially help overcome the shortcomings of SSD (the price per GB is greatly increased).
Is there a way to determine and find The “cost” of the smaller allocation scale that is particularly relevant to the road time? Or is there any research or article suggesting to change the default value based on this new technology?
(Assuming the most even distribution of large and small program files, operating system files, data, mp3, text files, etc.)
If you are Looking for a good article I recommend
The Hows and Whys of SSDs by Robert Hallock
I link to page 2, which contains a section discussing clusters and block sizes.
[…] The solution to the problem is to
increase the cluster size, for which
there are several advantages:< ul>
Reduced file system complexity; less clusters means less to organize. Increased read and write speed as cluster size approaches parity with
block size.Decreased slack space if the system is primarily composed of large
files.Yet increased cluster size is not a magic bullet for solid state disks, as most people have a mix of information. Games often contain a myriad of small files and operating systems are the sum of small files almost as a rule; yet movies, music, archives and MMOs are perfect candidates for enlarged cluster sizes. More frustrating than the anchor of small clusters is the complicated process to get larger clusters under modern Windows operating systems. Such a feat requires premeditated use of programs like Acronis Disk Director which can increase cluster sizes prior to the installation of Windows. It is also possible to resize existing clusters, but such a procedure is accomplished with a frighteningly varied degree of success.