At 04:09 PM 6/27/98 -0700, Don Cooley wrote:
>Do you mean using the:
>
>/z:1 will give you   512K clusters (no matter how big the drive)
>/z:2 will give you 1020K clusters
>/z:4 will give you 2048K clusters
>
>when you format the drive?
>
>I looked in the Win 98 Resource Kit and couldn't find it.  Must be one of
>those "hidden" things.
>
>Do you have any idea what would be the most efficient and fastest?  I would
>think the lower the number the more of the drive that is used but it would
>slow down the drive as it is skipping all over to put together small
>clusters.
>
There is one other disadvantage to using smaller clusters.  The smaller the
cluster, the larger the FAT table (inevitably, more clusters to map) and
this could slow things down slightly as there is more FAT to search.

One other thing ... the default will give you 4K clusters up to and
including 8.5 GB drives (I have two of them).  Remember that clusters are
meaningless for the root directory and FAT table itself, which are fairly
large in FAT32 systems.  So the restriction of  "4K clusters up to 7 GB" is
misleading.  It doesn't refer to actual drive size, but to the free space
left after the root directory and FAT table have been written to the drive.

ray reyes

[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
ICQ 8603107

"Whaddya mean I'm on hold?  I thought I was online!!"