<div>
Does larger blocks of reads equate to faster performance?
</div>


<div>
Ok, I found the answer at PCGUIDE. &nbsp;I asked because I noticed when I converted a fat partion to NTFS, it automatically chose 512. &nbsp;Now I see that may be a speed problem. &nbsp;Thank you.
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
I understand the advantage of a smaller sector size when formatting a hard drive. &nbsp;A small file such as a 1 kb shortcut will use a complete sector. &nbsp;Therefore it wastes less space on a 512 b sector as opposed to a 4 or 8 kb sector. &nbsp;So are there any advantages to a 4 kb sector as is the default for NT? &nbsp;
</div>
</div>


I understand the advantage of a smaller sector size when formatting a hard drive.  A small file such as a 1 kb shortcut will use a complete sector.  Therefore it wastes less space on a 512 b sector as opposed to a 4 or 8 kb sector.  So are there any advantages to a 4 kb sector as is the default for NT?  

Does larger blocks of reads equate to faster performance?

Ok, I found the answer at PCGUIDE.  I asked because I noticed when I converted a fat partion to NTFS, it automatically chose 512.  Now I see that may be a speed problem.  Thank you.

Cluster size 512 bytes vs 4 kb

This topic area includes legacy versions of Windows prior to Windows 2000: Windows 3/3.1, Windows 95 and Windows 98, plus any other Windows-related versions including Windows Mobile.