12
1
Referencing this page: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/140365
NTFS doesn't go over 4KB cluster size until the volume goes over 16TB, and FAT32 maxes out at 16KB in the 16GB–32GB volume range on modern versions of Windows.
exFAT however only defaults to 4KB in the 7MB–256MB volume range. After that it jumps to 32KB in the 256MB–32GB range, and 128KB beyond that.
Why is that? A relatively high cluster size seems wasteful, especially in a format designed for smaller external devices, like flash drives. Doubly so if you're formatting flash memory, because as I understand it, the main benefit to larger cluster size is faster IO due to less fragmentation and less overall clusters to read. Correct me if I'm wrong, but flash memory is much, much less prone to slowdowns caused by fragmentation. So why make the cluster size so high?
"Size" and "high" do not go together. Numbers can be "high". "Large" is the bettor word instead of "high". – sawdust – 2018-09-13T21:42:32.797
Possible duplicate of Downsides of a small allocation unit size
– sawdust – 2018-09-13T21:44:09.997just wanted to mention that I just formatted a 1TB drive using default cluster size, and windows used a cluster size of 2048KB!!! This is not only defying the specs on their page, this is always WAYY too high – woojoo666 – 2018-09-16T09:23:05.283
For anyone who reached this by Googling & might ever back up a git directory to the drive/card in question, it's important to know downside of large sectors, too: each ~200 byte file in a git directory takes up 1 full allocation unit. Large sectors can make dev dirs (which can have 10k+ tiny files) take up a large multiple of their normal HDD sizes. Ex: https://superuser.com/questions/704218/why-is-there-such-a-big-difference-between-size-and-size-on-disk https://superuser.com/questions/1370780/my-sandisk-usb-flash-drive-shows-that-43gb-is-used-when-i-just-copied-a-10gb-fol?noredirect=1&lq=1
– kcrumley – 2019-07-08T18:09:25.503