If you are backing up the data, every file will get read at least once, and their directory entries will be trolled every backup pass. By setting a 16K block size, it sounds like the very large majority of writes would be to a single block which would make those 3% of reads much more efficient when they happen. With a 2K block size and a 8.5K average file-size, 50% of your I/O operations will be to 5 blocks or more. To elaborate on my comment on Ptolemy's answer.īy setting up your block size so a very large majority of every file is contained within one block, you do get I/O efficiencies. My guess is that buying a larger hard drive is probably cheaper than buying faster hard drives. Not only that, when its selecting a gap for your file, the os does not know if you are writing a 5 block file or a 2 block file, so it can't make a good choices on where to save your file.Īt the end of the day, engineering is about handling conflicting needs, and choosing the lowest cost solution to these balancing needs.
#How to remove ntfs file system free#
Long before you fill the disk, you will find that the only free space is in gaps between other files. Think of it like this, during the first 18 months you will be writing files into clean empty disk, but the OS doesnt know that once closed, no more data will be added to each file, so it has been leaving some blocks available at the end each file incase that file is extended later. Using a cluster size that is capable of storing 95% of your files in one cluster each, will improve your IO write performance.Īs other people have pointed out, using a tiny cluster size of 2k will cause fragmentation over time. Files and the file allocation table will not be on the same sector on the disk, so having to allocated blocks as you are writing files will cause the disk head to have to constantly move around. There is a balance between using small cluster sizes and IO performance in writing large files. Since performance seems to already be an issue, this will only be making matters worse for you. Disk defragmentation will kill performance whilst you are defragmenting the disk.
![how to remove ntfs file system how to remove ntfs file system](https://www.diskpart.com/articles/images/remove-ntfs-partition-0310/yes.jpg)
Windows NTFS file systems by default attempts to defragment file systems in the background. do you have enough memory? or are you paging memory to disk as well?) This does not seem to be a significant problem for a single SATA disk so my guess is that you have other problems as well as disk performance. Assuming that these files are writen over a 24 hour day, this means around 3 files a second. You are wanting to write 1.7GB of data a day, in 200,000 files. Change block size to 16kb so each file is written into a single block.