Trying to install Windows XP on RAID partition with 64kb cluster size

[Leggie]

Hi all,

Motherboard is an Asus A8N-E. I'm having problems in installing Windows XP. I want to install it on an NTFS partition (on my RAID 0 array) with 64kb cluster size, but there aren't any options to choose the cluster size during Windows Setup and it defaults to 4kb. So I tried installing XP, then creating another new partition with the 64kb cluster size, then starting Setup again and deleting the old partition and installing XP on the new partition (with the 64kb cluster size). All seems to install until it required a reboot, then the system won't boot. The Windows screen won't even come up, it just reboots once it tries to boot from the hard disk.

I hasten to add that I am loading (with F6) the NVIDIA drivers for my RAID 0 array during Setup.

Does anyone know of any issues with installing XP with a 64kb cluster size, or anything else that might be the problem?

Thanks,

Leggie

[Splash]

I don't know of any issues, but then it's not something I've ever done. Why are you wanting to use a cluster size that's 16x the default?

[Leggie]

I don't know of any issues, but then it's not something I've ever done. Why are you wanting to use a cluster size that's 16x the default?

In a word, performance...I'm editing HDV and am willing to sacrifice efficient hard disk space usage for a bit of extra speed.

[Splash]

I see... You're going to be editing video that's on the same partition as your OS is installed to? Wouldn't it be quicker to install Windows to a regular partition and have another partition setup purely for the video, with this haveing the increased cluster size?

I know it doesn't answer your initially question, I'm just trying to figure ways to work around it while maintaining performance.

EDIT - also I'm guessing that as you're using the nVidia RAID drivers this is an onboard software raid controller. Bearing in mind that this is going to have a hit on the CPU (as the CPU is processing the RAID as well as everything else) would a dedicated hardware RAID card be a wise move?

[Leggie]

I see... You're going to be editing video that's on the same partition as your OS is installed to? Wouldn't it be quicker to install Windows to a regular partition and have another partition setup purely for the video, with this haveing the increased cluster size?

I know it doesn't answer your initially question, I'm just trying to figure ways to work around it while maintaining performance.

I am as a matter of fact intending on having a separate partition for my video files. I just want the OS to be running as fast as possible as well. Since I've currently got a clean sheet, so to speak, I want to make sure I do everything I can to enhance the speed now, before I install all my programs again.

[Splash]

Just a thought - does the XP defrag tool cope with 64k clusters? If not you're soon going to lose any performance benefits to the larger cluster size.

EDIT - Google says it will. 64k is the maximum size, which I guess is why you chose it.

EDIT 2 - I'd imagine that you could use a BartPE/WinPE disk to create the partitions with the relevant structure and cluster size, then kick the install off - surely that would work?

[Leggie]

EDIT 2 - I'd imagine that you could use a BartPE/WinPE disk to create the partitions with the relevant structure and cluster size, then kick the install off - surely that would work?

Possibly. I'll have a look at the WAIK. However, I think this is basically what I've already done, albeit in a more long-winded way, since I pre-formatted the partition while in a previous Windows installation.

Hmm...

Thanks for your help, either way.

[Splash]

Well.... let us know how you get along. It's certainly an interesting question.

[Leggie]

OK, after trawling through a 19 page thread I've discovered that Windows XP SP2 refuses to boot with a cluster size of greater than 4KB. SP1, on the other hand, is fine with it. Unfortunately I don't have a SP1 disk, otherwise I would probably try slipstreaming the necessary files into SP2.

So I'm rather stumped. Needless to say I'm not feeling particularly friendly about Microsoft managing to break previous functionality, and then not fixing it.

[Blaineoliver]

Well if you have a normal disk, you can use nlite, and add in the service pack after downloading it, then you can burn it. Its legal and microsoft encourage it.

[Leggie]

Well if you have a normal disk, you can use nlite, and add in the service pack after downloading it, then you can burn it. Its legal and microsoft encourage it.

Thanks, unfortunately I don't have a normal disk, only a SP2 disk. I did use nLite as a matter of fact to slipstream SP3 into the installation (and my RAID drivers), but no joy with the >4kb cluster size. So in view of the time, I've admitted defeat, ahem, I mean, beat a strategical retreat and opted to install on a smaller 4kb cluster size volume. I expect the only thing a larger cluster size would have done would have sped up program loading times slightly anyway, so I'll just have to live with that.

I'm now planning on putting the page file on a separate partition (same array, unfortunately) with a 64kb cluster size - any ideas on how big I should set it? I've 4GB of RAM (on a 32-bit system, unfortunately) so I'm thinking perhaps a 4GB maximum page file size as well.

Thanks,

Leggie

[CaptainCrash]

I'm now planning on putting the page file on a separate partition (same array, unfortunately) with a 64kb cluster size

If it's on a different partition on the same physical array (or single drive), this will give you precisely zero performance benefit - in fact it may in theory even hurt performance slightly, as you'll be forcing the heads to seek further to access the pagefile. If you're concerned about it fragmenting, you could set fixed upper and lower limits for its size, but with 4GB of RAM, if I were you I'd just leave it alone to look after itself (some people may suggest disabling it entirely, but that's probably an argument for another thread)...

I do think you might be getting a bit too hung up on cluster sizes, and making life difficult for yourself as a result - I can see the logic for a partition that will be used exclusively, or nearly so, for very large media files, but even then I think you're overstating the potential performance benefits, although of course I'm ready to be corrected if you have data to the contrary.

Slightly OT: if you're editing video, have you considered using the disks independently (as opposed to RAID-0), with one used as source (preprocessed), and one as destination (postprocessed)? That way, you can have them reading and writing concurrently - with RAID-0, you can only have consecutive reads & writes, and even if the theoretical 2x STR were realised in practice, you'd still lose out with the extra seeking overhead involved...

[Leggie]

If it's on a different partition on the same physical array (or single drive), this will give you precisely zero performance benefit - in fact it may in theory even hurt performance slightly, as you'll be forcing the heads to seek further to access the pagefile.

That's what I fear. Do you reckon the larger cluster size will really not make up for the extra movement required?

If you're concerned about it fragmenting, you could set fixed upper and lower limits for its size, but with 4GB of RAM, if I were you I'd just leave it alone to look after itself (some people may suggest disabling it entirely, but that's probably an argument for another thread)...

It's currently set to let the system do what it wants with it; it seems to opt for about a 3GB pagefile.

I do think you might be getting a bit too hung up on cluster sizes, and making life difficult for yourself as a result - I can see the logic for a partition that will be used exclusively, or nearly so, for very large media files, but even then I think you're overstating the potential performance benefits, although of course I'm ready to be corrected if you have data to the contrary.

Yes, I quite agree that I'm probably obsessing too much about this - I just want to set everything up as well as it can be.

Slightly OT: if you're editing video, have you considered using the disks independently (as opposed to RAID-0), with one used as source (preprocessed), and one as destination (postprocessed)? That way, you can have them reading and writing concurrently - with RAID-0, you can only have consecutive reads & writes, and even if the theoretical 2x STR were realised in practice, you'd still lose out with the extra seeking overhead involved...

That's a very good suggestion. In my case, however, I spend 99% of my time arranging the video in the NLE (Sony Vegas Pro, in my case) rather than rendering, so what I really need (I think) is a fast read speed so I can preview the video and shift it about on the timeline without much of a delay. So correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a RAID 0 array should serve this purpose well. When I come to do the final render, however, I'll very likely render to a separate, non-RAID, IDE hard drive.

I have the nasty feeling I may have to bite the bullet and buy another couple of SATA drives just for the video files...

Any other tips welcome!

Thanks,

Leggie