View Full Version : Cluster size in unattended disk format???
Alex
April 22nd 03, 07:33 AM
I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP
Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in
unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk
format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to
format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried
pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not
work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
[DiskConfig]
Disk0 = Disk0.Config
[Disk0.Config]
VolumeLabel1=C_FAT32_512
ForceFormat1 = Yes
FileSystem1 = FAT32
Clustersize1 = 512
Compression1 = NO
SetActive1 = Yes
PartitionType1 = Primary
ForceFormat2=Yes
VolumeLabel2 = D_NTFS_512
FileSystem2=NTFS
Clustersize2 = 512
Compression2 = Yes
PartitionType2 = Logical
; I tried also: AllocationUnitSize2 = 512
Do know how to do this?
Best, Alex
Jon
April 22nd 03, 01:11 PM
"Alex" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP=20
> Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in=20
> unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk=20
> format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to=20
> format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried=20
> pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not=20
> work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
Hi,
Open "Help & Support" and type (no quotes) "Diskpart" in the search =
window, and you'll be enlightened.
Jon
April 22nd 03, 01:11 PM
"Alex" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP=20
> Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in=20
> unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk=20
> format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to=20
> format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried=20
> pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not=20
> work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
Hi,
Open "Help & Support" and type (no quotes) "Diskpart" in the search =
window, and you'll be enlightened.
Nicholas
April 22nd 03, 01:35 PM
A 512-byte cluster size is not better. You should be using a 4-kb =
cluster size.
NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp
Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/performance/benchmark.asp=20
--=20
Nicholas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
"Alex" > wrote in message: =20
...
|=20
| I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP=20
| Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in=20
| unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk=20
| format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to=20
| format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried=20
| pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not=20
| work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
|=20
| [DiskConfig]
| Disk0 =3D Disk0.Config
|=20
| [Disk0.Config]
| VolumeLabel1=3DC_FAT32_512
| ForceFormat1 =3D Yes
| FileSystem1 =3D FAT32
| Clustersize1 =3D 512
| Compression1 =3D NO
| SetActive1 =3D Yes
| PartitionType1 =3D Primary
|=20
| ForceFormat2=3DYes
| VolumeLabel2 =3D D_NTFS_512
| FileSystem2=3DNTFS
| Clustersize2 =3D 512
| Compression2 =3D Yes
| PartitionType2 =3D Logical
|=20
| ; I tried also: AllocationUnitSize2 =3D 512
|=20
| Do know how to do this?
|=20
| Best, Alex
|
Nicholas
April 22nd 03, 01:35 PM
A 512-byte cluster size is not better. You should be using a 4-kb =
cluster size.
NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp
Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/performance/benchmark.asp=20
--=20
Nicholas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
"Alex" > wrote in message: =20
...
|=20
| I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP=20
| Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in=20
| unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk=20
| format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to=20
| format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried=20
| pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not=20
| work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
|=20
| [DiskConfig]
| Disk0 =3D Disk0.Config
|=20
| [Disk0.Config]
| VolumeLabel1=3DC_FAT32_512
| ForceFormat1 =3D Yes
| FileSystem1 =3D FAT32
| Clustersize1 =3D 512
| Compression1 =3D NO
| SetActive1 =3D Yes
| PartitionType1 =3D Primary
|=20
| ForceFormat2=3DYes
| VolumeLabel2 =3D D_NTFS_512
| FileSystem2=3DNTFS
| Clustersize2 =3D 512
| Compression2 =3D Yes
| PartitionType2 =3D Logical
|=20
| ; I tried also: AllocationUnitSize2 =3D 512
|=20
| Do know how to do this?
|=20
| Best, Alex
|
Ron Martell
April 22nd 03, 06:11 PM
"Alex" > wrote:
>
>I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP
>Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in
>unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk
>format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to
>format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried
>pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not
>work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
>
>[DiskConfig]
>Disk0 = Disk0.Config
>
>[Disk0.Config]
>VolumeLabel1=C_FAT32_512
>ForceFormat1 = Yes
>FileSystem1 = FAT32
>Clustersize1 = 512
>Compression1 = NO
>SetActive1 = Yes
>PartitionType1 = Primary
>
>ForceFormat2=Yes
>VolumeLabel2 = D_NTFS_512
>FileSystem2=NTFS
>Clustersize2 = 512
>Compression2 = Yes
>PartitionType2 = Logical
>
>; I tried also: AllocationUnitSize2 = 512
>
>Do know how to do this?
>
>Best, Alex
512 byte clusters on a FAT32 drive will be very problematic, even with
Windows XP. There are several reasons why you should never exceed 4.1
million total clusters on a FAT32 drive and with 512 byte clusters this
means a maximum partition size of 2 gb.
You can specify the cluster size for a drive by using the /A parameter
with the FORMAT command in Windows XP but I am not certain how to do this
in an unattended context.
Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Ron Martell
April 22nd 03, 06:11 PM
"Alex" > wrote:
>
>I've looked thought all Support Tools in Win2kAS, Win-XP
>Prof, and Win2003 Server, but cannot find how in
>unattended mode (or active installation) to force disk
>format with non default cluster size, e.g., I want to
>format with 512 byte which should be better. I tried
>pointed below section, but [DiskConfig] section does not
>work in unattended.sif or unattended.txt files.
>
>[DiskConfig]
>Disk0 = Disk0.Config
>
>[Disk0.Config]
>VolumeLabel1=C_FAT32_512
>ForceFormat1 = Yes
>FileSystem1 = FAT32
>Clustersize1 = 512
>Compression1 = NO
>SetActive1 = Yes
>PartitionType1 = Primary
>
>ForceFormat2=Yes
>VolumeLabel2 = D_NTFS_512
>FileSystem2=NTFS
>Clustersize2 = 512
>Compression2 = Yes
>PartitionType2 = Logical
>
>; I tried also: AllocationUnitSize2 = 512
>
>Do know how to do this?
>
>Best, Alex
512 byte clusters on a FAT32 drive will be very problematic, even with
Windows XP. There are several reasons why you should never exceed 4.1
million total clusters on a FAT32 drive and with 512 byte clusters this
means a maximum partition size of 2 gb.
You can specify the cluster size for a drive by using the /A parameter
with the FORMAT command in Windows XP but I am not certain how to do this
in an unattended context.
Good luck
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Ken Blake
April 22nd 03, 08:44 PM
In , Alex wrote:
> I want to
> format with 512 byte which should be better.
Why do think 512-byte clusters are better than the default?
Although they may waste a little less space to slack (not
terribly important in these days of very cheap hard drives),
they're considerably slower.
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup
Ken Blake
April 22nd 03, 08:44 PM
In , Alex wrote:
> I want to
> format with 512 byte which should be better.
Why do think 512-byte clusters are better than the default?
Although they may waste a little less space to slack (not
terribly important in these days of very cheap hard drives),
they're considerably slower.
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.