Author: Ernst Walet
Date: 03:38:01 11/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2002 at 06:19:01, Bo Persson wrote: >There is no need for this with Windows XP. Older Win9x and DOS had a problem >with the disk cluster size growing with increasing partition sizes. This >affected the minimum file size and the average round off error (lost space at >the end of each file). > >I have a 100G drive with Windows XP, and it still keeps the cluster size at 4kB, >which is fine. That is when you use NTFS, which I don't. > >Also the EGTB files will not *become* fragmented once they are stored properly >to the disk. As you never write to them, they will stay put. You're right, fragmented was not the good word, scattered around would be better. >You might generally >consider defragmenting the disk *before* adding large files, so that any old >"slack" will be removed and you new installation are stored in a contiguous free >space. > >There is no need to chop up a nice new disk in smaller segments! > > Normally I agree with you, but knowing that transfer speed is the fastes at the beginning of the drive, as there are more sectors per track there, you gain two things. 1. Reading EGTB's and reading and writing swap file is faster. 2. you need less seeks and thereby increase access times. Ernst. >Bo Persson >bop2@telia.com
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.