Solved

Windows NTFS best file allocate unit size for a Backup-to-Disk Partition

Posted on 2010-11-19
6
3,011 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-10
I'm configuring a 2TB partition for backup-to-disk, and normally I just take the default file allocate unit size of default, or 4096.  I'm wondering if since I'll have a small number of actual files and the files themselves will be very large, would it help performance if I set the size to be much higher than the default?  If so, would I put it at the highest of 64K?
0
Comment
Question by:jpletcher1
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
6 Comments
 
LVL 42

Accepted Solution

by:
kevinhsieh earned 63 total points
ID: 34175235
If you have a small number of large files, I would use 64K NTFS allocation blocks.
0
 
LVL 59

Assisted Solution

by:Darius Ghassem
Darius Ghassem earned 62 total points
ID: 34175239
For backup you can run the 64K option but how much performance gain are you really going to get.

http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/ssqanet/archive/2008/04/28/sql-server-2005-and-disk-drive-allocation-unit-size-to-64k-any-benefit-or-performance.aspx
0
 

Author Comment

by:jpletcher1
ID: 34175796
That link requires a login so I can't see it.  I'm not sure of the performance statistics, only that everything written by Microsoft claims the higher the size the better the performance.  Can you explain a little about what the article says?
0
Edgartown IT Case Study

Learn about Edgartown's quest to ensure the safety and security of the entire town's employee and citizen data. Read the case study!

 
LVL 42

Expert Comment

by:kevinhsieh
ID: 34175807
Just hit cancel when asked to login.
0
 
LVL 59

Expert Comment

by:Darius Ghassem
ID: 34175812
Just hit cancel on the login
0
 

Author Comment

by:jpletcher1
ID: 34175889
As I read this article it seems to promote 64k block size as long as I'm not going to use compression right?  I don't see anything regarding performance so to speak.  I think I'll just go with 64k.  Thanks for the info.
0

Featured Post

[Webinar] Code, Load, and Grow

Managing multiple websites, servers, applications, and security on a daily basis? Join us for a webinar on May 25th to learn how to simplify administration and management of virtual hosts for IT admins, create a secure environment, and deploy code more effectively and frequently.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Is your phone running out of space to hold pictures?  This article will show you quick tips on how to solve this problem.
Many businesses neglect disaster recovery and treat it as an after-thought. I can tell you first hand that data will be lost, hard drives die, servers will be hacked, and careless (or malicious) employees can ruin your data.
This tutorial will walk an individual through the process of installing the necessary services and then configuring a Windows Server 2012 system as an iSCSI target. To install the necessary roles, go to Server Manager, and select Add Roles and Featu…
This tutorial will walk an individual through setting the global and backup job media overwrite and protection periods in Backup Exec 2012. Log onto the Backup Exec Central Administration Server. Examine the services. If all or most of them are stop…

751 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question