Jump to content
IGNORED

The best allocation unit size for music.


Recommended Posts

I need an advice on the best allocation unit size for music - mostly hi-res including SACD ISOs and scans of different sizes. The drive is WD My Book 10TB. Still Windows 7, soon probably - Wind.10. 'Standard' 4kb or go for 8kb.?

Thanks in advance!

What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

I need an advice on the best allocation unit size for music - mostly hi-res including SACD ISOs and scans of different sizes. The drive is WD My Book 10TB. Still Windows 7, soon probably - Wind.10. 'Standard' 4kb or go for 8kb.?

Thanks in advance!

 These  customer reviews may be worth a read.

 

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/reviews/wd-my-book-10tb-external-usb-3-0-hard-drive-with-hardware-encryption-black/6252692

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 28-06-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites

@bluesman thanks for the comprehensive answer.

 

I'm not on Win of any sort, or even Mac OS so I'll just have to suffer through not knowing. I did know not to attempt to defragment an SSD. Not that I have had to even think about defragmenting a drive in probably a decade or more anyway. I know my Linux install has a trim setting that works weekly, and that's all that's needed.

No electron left behind...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

@bluesman thanks for the comprehensive answer.

 

I'm not on Win of any sort, or even Mac OS so I'll just have to suffer through not knowing. I did know not to attempt to defragment an SSD. Not that I have had to even think about defragmenting a drive in probably a decade or more anyway. I know my Linux install has a trim setting that works weekly, and that's all that's needed.

It’s the file system that asks you to set allocation size when you format a drive.  Modern Linux uses ext4, and the default is also 4K.  You can run into mounting problems when block size is bigger than page size, and there’s no performance advantage to going above the default.  So stick to the default and you’ll be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

@sphinxsix why did you think it might matter?

AFAIK it does matter as far as balance between the wasted disc space vs read speed is regarded, eg often people who like to stream (or record) a couple of movies at the same time use quite big AUSs on their HDs (don't know if it's justified though, I have never been interested in this). Since I'm transferring my HD music from 8TB drive to the new 10TB one (hopefully the last one x-D) I was simply interested in an optimum AUS.

What’s true of all the evils in the world is true of plague as well.
It helps men to rise above themselves.
 
  ―  Albert Camus, The Plague.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sphinxsix said:

AFAIK it does matter as far as balance between the wasted disc space vs read speed is regarded, eg often people who like to stream (or record) a couple of movies at the same time use quite big AUSs on their HDs

I’ve run benchmarks on current HDs (WD Red and Seagate Iron Wolf) using tiny and huge clusters, and the difference in random read and write performance is negligible.  Others have found the same thing. This project was done 8 years ago, so the discs tested were not as fast as the new ones I used a few months ago when I got my new Asustor NAS - but the results are the same as mine:


“The speed differences seen in this test between the large sizes and the default size were not significant enough to recommend large sizes...I was curious to see whether there are obvious benefits to large cluster sizes.  Apparently, there are not.”


Poorly chosen cluster size can interfere with function, eg NTFS cannot compress files with clusters bigger 4k. It can also affect RAID, since stripe size is independent of allocation and should always be equal to or bigger than cluster size. If bigger, stripe size should be in multiples of cluster size for best performance and efficiency.  There’s little (if any) reason to use other than the default allocation for a given file system.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...