• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How do you tweak NTFS in Windows 2000 for maximum performance?

U

UKspace

Banned
After much debate I have decided to go with NTFS as my file system for my new install of Windows 2000, once I get my system buit.

I intend to setup 2 x 46.1Gb IBM 75GXP HDD in RAID 0 using an ASUS A7V133.

Here are the partitions I intend to have:

C: WinME (2Gb FAT32)
D: Win2k (4Gb NTFS)
E: Everything else (86.2Gb NTFS)

Don't want too many partitions.

I have also got a slower 8.4Gb 5400RPM HDD that will just be used as a backup drive.
Would it be better to set this up as FAT32, so in the event of failure I would still be able to access my backup from Windows ME?

How would I optimise this for maximum performance? I will only be using the system as a home/home office PC so the security of NTFS will not be of paramount importance.

I will get the Windows 98/ME NTFS drivers from Winternals to allow Windows 98/ME to see the NTFS Drive. So I should be able to read/write to the 86Gb partition just like any other drive.

I appreciate any help and advice given.
 
You might want to leave yourself a few extra gigs on the c: and d: partitions. The system folder can easily exceed a gig.
 
I agree with ddiccico. Speaking from past experience I would leave at least 9-10Gb for the Win2K partition. For the WinME partition it is best to leave anything up to and over 6Gb.

---------------------------------------------
There are two ways to write error-free programs. Only the third one works!
 
hm..i don't nkow about that. I only have 2gigs for win2k partition and it's well and dandy with constant about 1gig free most of the time unless i put files there temporarily.
all my programs and such are installed on a seperate partition for ease of reinstalling windows whenever the need comes.
 
Ok, will make the C and D partitions larger.

6Gb to Win 2k and 4Gb to Win ME. Ok?

I appreciate all the advice, but no one has still answered my question of how to tweak NTFS in Windows 2000 for maximum performance? Bearing in mind that the DATA drive will be around 80Gb large and I am more concerned with performance then securtiy.
 


<< I intend to setup 2 x 46.1Gb IBM 75GXP HDD in RAID 0 >>

That should supply you all the performance you need. Also cleaning unwanted files (i.e. temp files, temp internet files) would also help to sustain maximum performance using NTFS. Also making sure your files don?t get to fragmented is important when using NTFS (also FAT for that matter).

Other then that I don?t think there is any real way to tweak NTFS, but keeping it clean and in bloated from scrap files.

[EDIT]

You may also want to consider creating a few more partitions, one large partition can something degrade performance (i.e. it takes longer to access one large partition especially when you start adding more programs/files/junk, then accessing a few smaller partitions). You could at least split it 3 ways, 28GB approximately. That would give you better seek times.
 
NTFS actually fragments faster than FAT32 (despite what MS says) so you might want something that auto-defrags the system nightly.

The most important thing performance wise with NTFS is to make sure that you do the initial format as NTFS as a converted FAT file system will have some conversion overhead....

There are some articles on some windoze sites that go into some more detail about tweaking the NTFS file system but it's mostly stuff that would be needed on servers that run tons of file access and they are pretty minor tweaks.

NTFS mostly just takes care of itself.
 
Thanks.

How will more partitions increase seek times? I read on a thread that their is no real advantage of lots of partitions and can actually slowdown the system.

What is this about cluster size? How will it aid performance?

How can I specify it when doing a clean install of windows 2000? What would be the best size to set it to?

How long will it take to defragment 92GB of HDD?? Will I be drawing my pension before it is finished! :Q I'v heard Diskeeper 6.0 is pretty fast.

Thanks
 
UKspace,

you are asking us to do your research for you! 😀

in all seriousness, with win2k you shouldn't need to set cluster size as it will be set automatically based on the total size of the partition.

multiple partitions will not necessarily slow you down but definitely won't speed you up. what I think you are referring to is that putting the swap file on a disk other than the one that the OS resides on will speed things up.

defragging will take a long freaking time with whatever you use because it's gotta effectively re-write your entire array when you defrag. divide your partition size by your sustained read/write speed to get an approximate idea.
 
Thanks for the help.

I think I will make the partitions smaller and maybe make a partition just for the swapfile.

Thanks again. 🙂
 


<< How long will it take to defragment 92GB of HDD?? Will I be drawing my pension before it is finished! I'v heard Diskeeper 6.0 is pretty fast. >>

Depending on how much information you have on your 92GB drive, and your hard drive speed. The faster the hard drive and CPU the less time it would take. Win2k comes with a lite version of Diskeeper. My largest partition is 10GB, it?s take me approximate 10-12 minutes to defrag it, and I have only 1.75GB used.

<< What is this about cluster size? How will it aid performance? >>

The larger the partition, the larger the cluster and more wasted space you?ll have. Programs like Partition Magic will allow you to change the size of a cluster, but only to whats allowed.

Go read this:

<< Which influences on performance are most important also depends on how you are using the device. If you are running a file server, the hard disk will be doing a lot of random accesses to files all over the disk, and positioning performance will be extremely important. If you are a single user doing multimedia editing where you need to read multi-gigabyte consecutive files as fast as possible, data transfer is far more important than positioning speed.

Most of the performance specifications that hard disk manufacturers provide to describe their products can be broken down into categories by which aspect of performance they measure. I have designed the section on performance specifications with this in mind: there are sections discussing positioning performance specifications and transfer performance specifications. In addition, there are two key specifications that reflect aspects of both positioning and transfer. There are also some specifications that don't really fit into these categories. >>

Click here

[EDIT]

Liek gunf1ghter said, NTFS is really something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top