64k block size and XP - is it compatible?

[Ctrl-Z]

Like the SageTV manual recommends, I wanted to dedicate a partition to video storage using 64k block (cluster) size. I used XP's (XP SP2) Disk Management to do so on a WD 180GB ATA drive. This was the beginning of my nightmare.

All appeared fine after I copied backed up data back onto the drive. However after powering off/on, XP sees the drive as empty with no operating system (status is seen as "Healthy"). Partition Magic and other disc utilities see the drive as having no problems at all but XP is what counts. When I attempt to access that drive in XP, the error message "An error occurred reading folder. The file or directory is corrupted and unreadable." OK, that would be expected I guess if XP doesn't see a file system. I had used this drive for 1.5 years with no problems before I changed cluster size.

I tried to reformat a couple of times (still 64K clusters) and the same problem would occur after powering off/on. Before giving up, I tried the drive in another computer running XP and this time the drive couldn't even be formatted. So I have RMAed that drive and am awaiting
a replacement.

However here is where things get interesting. I just installed a new Seagate 120GB SATA drive. Again I formatted it using Disk Management with 64K clusters (full format). I copied some data onto it and it seemed fine. But after I had powered off/on a few times, once again XP
sees the drive as 100% empty with no file system. Again, Partition Magic doesn't see any problem with the drive. HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENING? This is an entirely new drive, using SATA instead of ATA on an entirely different controller! The only thing in common is that both were formatted with 64K clusters. Is there any known problem with 64K clusters that would cause XP to not recognize the NTFS file system???

I don't yet know if my new drive is also dead but I'm becoming downright paranoid. Any help here is greatly appreciated.

Sorry that this isn't strictly SageTV related but I'm thinking that some of you must be using partitions with 64K clusters right? Does XP have some kind of incompatibility with 64K clusters that will cause it to not recognize the NTFS file system and/or continually destroy hard drives?

[mdmint]

My main 1.5TB Sage storage paritition was created using WinXP, NTFS, 64k block size. No problems since creation 8 or 9 months ago.

[mightyt]

Same here ...

My breakdown has many drives, partitions with both 4k and 64k clusters ... All is well ... BTW, I had done this with SATA and ATA drives without a hitch ...

I know you have SP2, is you XP patched up to date?

When you put the drives in a format 4k does the symptom disappear?

T.

[Wheemer]

I just installed a Western Digital 120g drive and formatted it 64k in Win XP. I noticed today that it was completely missing from disk management. Restarted and everything was fine, sort of. I then noticed that my playback in Sage is now completely choppy. I don't know really if these issues are related to 64k formatting, but this was what I am suspecting.

Maybe some IDE controllers don't like 64k formatting??

[Ctrl-Z]

I'm having a hard time thinking this is a hardware problem because it's been repeated on an ATA NTFS drive on one controller and on a SATA NTFS drive on a different controller. All XP operating system files are up to date according to Windows update.

I did another quick format this time using 32K clusters (next best thing right?). Same problem after power off/on - no file system. So I did it again with default clusters and thus far the file system has survived 3 power on/off cycles. If it continues to work, I will not even think about changing the cluster size ever again. With video recordings, what performance penalty is associated with default (4K?) clusters vs. 64K?

[mdmint]

Originally Posted by Ctrl-Z

I'm having a hard time thinking this is a hardware problem because it's been repeated on an ATA NTFS drive on one controller and on a SATA NTFS drive on a different controller. All XP operating system files are up to date according to Windows update.

I did another quick format this time using 32K clusters (next best thing right?). Same problem after power off/on - no file system. So I did it again with default clusters and thus far the file system has survived 3 power on/off cycles. If it continues to work, I will not even think about changing the cluster size ever again. With video recordings, what performance penalty is associated with default (4K?) clusters vs. 64K?

I guarantee there's something hinky with your system, be it hardware or software. NTFS 64k clusters and WinXP solid as a rock for everyone else I know of. The performance hit for 4k vs 64k clusters is the HD will have to seek 16 times more often using 4k vs 64k clusters accessing data. If small files 4k or less, not an issue. But with Video were talking all large files of course.

[ToxMox]

What SATA chipset or card or motherboard are you using. I'd have to lean towards one of these causing problems. Maybe you need new serial ATA drivers.

[dvd_maniac]

what performance penalty is associated with default (4K?) clusters vs. 64K?

Fragmentation will be greater as well.

[Ctrl-Z]

I'm using an Abit NF7-S with the built-in Silicon Image SATA controller, current version 1.21 drivers. But the same problem also happened on a ATA drive using a Highpoint ATA RAID controller (the drive wasn't part of a RAID array). The problem drive(s) have been single partition drives that are only one of 9 partitions over 4 physical drives. But it is the only partition I ever attempted to change the cluster size from the default.

One thing I haven't tried is a full format using something other than XP's Disk Management - like Partition Magic or Seagate disk tools. But isn't it always considered a good idea to format/partition under the OS you use and not with DOS tools?

[mdmint]

Originally Posted by Ctrl-Z

I'm using an Abit NF7-S with the built-in Silicon Image SATA controller, current version 1.21 drivers. But the same problem also happened on a ATA drive using a Highpoint ATA RAID controller (the drive wasn't part of a RAID array). The problem drive(s) have been single partition drives that are only one of 9 partitions over 4 physical drives. But it is the only partition I ever attempted to change the cluster size from the default.

One thing I haven't tried is a full format using something other than XP's Disk Management - like Partition Magic or Seagate disk tools. But isn't it always considered a good idea to format/partition under the OS you use and not with DOS tools?

Interesting problem. Personally I wouldn't use Partition Magic or Seagate disk tools. I would try booting DOS and creating partition using FDISK. Then boot WinXP and do full format 64k clusters. But creating the partition should work from within WinXP. I just this morning created a new 500G Library partition via WinXP sp2 after expanding my workstation array from 2x250G mirrored to 4x250G RAID5.
Worked fine, and I used quick format. Rebooted still fine.

It's possible your WinXP isn't shutting down properly and hence new storage partition information not being saved. Not sure exactly when the information is written to disk with WinXP storage manager. I know using DOS Fdisk it doesn't take effect until after rebooting. But this doesn't seem to be the case with WinXP storage mgr since after creating and quick formatting a partition it's immediately available for use. Still could be using pointers in memory that need to be written to disk on shutdown I suppose, don't rightly know. 20+ years computer hardware field experience and don't recall seeing your specific problem so don't have ready pat answer, sorry.

[gplasky]

Since you say you were using a ATA Highpoint RAID controller and the Silicon Image SATA controller why don't you use the utilities that come with those to format the drives in 64K before you try doing anything at the OS level? I believe there are built in utilities available from the bios level of the card and/or software utilities you can run from Windows.

Gerry

[stanger89]

You aren't trying to format your C: drive with 64k clusters are you?

[Ctrl-Z]

Thanks for all the ideas. This really is baffling. I'd love to get to the bottom of it but for now - with default cluster size - things appear to be stable and I really don't have the necessary drive space to keep backing things up and reformatting. So I will leave it until I build a new system sometime in the next couple of months. Though if the file system disappears again and/or the drive dies, I may be building that new system sooner than I'd like to...

stanger89; no this isn't my system ( or C: ) drive I'm dealing with. It's just an extended partition on one of 4 hard drives.

[David Lawrance]

Originally Posted by stanger89

You aren't trying to format your C: drive with 64k clusters are you?

What would be wrong with doing that? Most of my C: drives have 64k clusters.

[stanger89]

Yeay, I don't now, I've got a 180GB partition with 64K clusters for my Sage recordings, a 1.3TB partition with 64K clusters with DVDs, and a number of other misc 64K partitions floating around.

[Opus4]

If you are using a 4k cluster size on a partition for recordings, you will most likely experience choppy playback and/or poor recordings at some point. Once the files get fragmented enough with such a small cluster size, the hard drive will probably not be able to keep up with the data throughput because it has to seek so much & seeking is a big time waster. With 64k clusters, it shouldn't matter how fragmented it gets - recordings/playback will still work.

- Andy

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by David Lawrance

What would be wrong with doing that? Most of my C: drives have 64k clusters.

Your C: drive will invariably contain a lot of small files, many smaller than 64KB. Now disk space is alocated by whole clusters, so each file uses at least one cluster. If you have 1024 1KB files, that's 1MB of data, but would require 64MB of disk space if you used 64KB clusters, compared to 4MB if you used the standard 4KB clusters.

If you go to your C: drive, select all files and go to properties, you should see Size (which is the actual size of the data) and the "Size on disk" comparing the two would give you an idea how much space you are wasting.

Using 64KB clusters on the boot/windows drive shouldn't hurt anything, but it could waste a lot of space.

[Ctrl-Z]

I'm curious - when you guys made your 64K cluster partitions did you do it within XP via formatting the whole partition? Or did you use something like Partition Magic which allows you to non-destructively change the cluster size?

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by Ctrl-Z

when you guys made your 64K cluster partitions did you do it within XP via formatting the whole partition? Or did you use something like Partition Magic which allows you to non-destructively change the cluster size?

Yes; I've done both.

Strangely, though, for my last few drives, I had to use XP to do the fresh format w/64k clusters. When I used PM to do the initial format, the NTFS partition failed during use. But, these were for 160-200GB sized partitions, so I wondered if PM just had problems using them.

- Andy

[BobPhoenix]

I had a somewhat similar problem (corrupted drive anyway) and found the following MS knowledge base artical to be of help to me. Maybe it will solve your problem as well?:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;303013

BobP.