@me_again

Hi Andy

The more important format option is to use NTFS , which is a more secure option for preventing data loss, it is a self healing format and can repair small errors on it own.

With respect to the block size, @CubeAce is correct, there is the disc space/access time trade off.

I stick to the default option as I am storing files anywhere from 1 KB to 100+ GB in size.

Is the SSD drive going to be used just for storing files to be used in the video editor, or are you going to use it for exporting or disc burning as well?

John EB

@johnebaker @CubeAce

Thanks both for the replies. I don't really know at the moment what it will be used for; video overspillwas my first thought but maybe for Windows libraries.

I happened to mention to my son that the 2Tb SSD I use for my video editing was three quarters full and I was thinking about getting a larger drive. He said he had one "lying around" and gave it to me, so I'd better at least install it.

I use an external drive for storage so from what you say, until I decide otherwise, I think I'll stay with the default setting.

AndyW

@me_again

Predominately video? 64k.

@AAProds

64k.

Blimey Al, that's a straightforward positive reply. Thanks.

See that spanner in those works?

Now I've got to rethink what it's new purpose in life is 😠🤓😃. It's a good job I've not done anything with it yet.

AndyW

@me_again

Andy, chuck this into Google and have a read of the AI response:

"file allocation size for video editing"

👍

@AAProds @me_again @johnebaker

Hi Al.

But if instead you put in 'file allocation size for photo editing', you get a different answer.

If the drive is to be dedicated to a specific function then allocating specific cluster sizes makes sense.

Most of my internal drives have mixed content and are part of my backup protocols until such times as files get permanently transferred to external portable SATA drives and off site as I tend to file content by date of recording as well as place and function/event.

For an expanded explanation on cluster sizes, type 'file allocation size for video editing on SSDs' instead.

This is just my experience but the amount of space saved by using smaller or larger cluster sizes or speed of access to read write cycles is not enormous on modern hardware compared to what happens as the drive gets less free space left to move the files around as can happen with temp files while editing. I personally find that as a drive fills is when video editing in particular starts to suffer but only with playback issues when using additional effects.

For sole video editing 2TBs is a large drive. It's probably also going to be used as semi permanent storage of all types of files as well. My problem with smaller cluster sizes on my machine is file transfers from cameras to drives or drive to drive takes longer.

This is just my take on things and case usage and I can always make a cuppa while waiting for file transfers 😂.

Ray.

In 1990 I had IBM XT with a whopping 10MB HDD,

I recall that after a year or 2 I learned that I should format it with smaller allocation size to gain a bit more "room"

@me_again, @CubeAce, @AAProds

Hi Andy, Ray, Al

In the interest of science (nerdiness?) I have been doing some testing with an SSD drive with 2 partitions one formatted with a 4K, and the second a 64k, allocation block size using the NTFS format.

Test files were 37.1GB  of 4K UHD video files, 101 files in 1 folder on a third SSD drive.

To get baseline figures for Writing and Reading from/to the third SSD drive to the 2 partition drive, the results were quite interesting:

• The writing to the 64 block partition test took 4% longer than the 4K block partition.
   
• Reading the same files was 53% faster for the 64K block partition compared to the 4K block partition.
   
• 'Loading' the 101 video files into VPX was 14% faster from the 64k block partition compared to the 4K block partition.

The above %age values are the average of 3 runs for each test.

When I get time I will test exporting from VPX.

John EB

@johnebaker

Thanks for those extremely interesting figures John.

Did you notice if there was any significant difference in "size on disk" under file properties for each test file?

AndyW

@johnebaker

Hi John.

There may be too many variables for conclusive individual results. Some people like to have their video files on the same drive as the project resides on while other will play the files from a separate drive. Depending on which drive/s the project and files reside on could also make differences to playback smoothness or export times. I think but I'm not sure, that all temp files reside on the (C) drive.

Weird thing is when using SSDs, the Task Manager hardly blips when monitoring the drives in use. Certainly the programs don't make full use of the speeds available.

Ray.

@me_again

Hi Andy

VPX export times for a 4K UHD 46m 54s 18f 50 fp source files to 4K UHD export of a movie changing the framerate to 29.97 fps, to prevent potential 'smart copying' are:

4K block        26m 26s

64k block        26m 24s

To all intents and purposes the result are identical.

@CubeAce

Hi Ray

. . . . There may be too many variables for conclusive individual results. . . .

On the contrary, I have removed all system variables possible In the testing for the comparisons, including the exports, therefore I am only comparing the differences/effect that 4k and 64 block allocation size has for the following reasons:

• The 4k and 64k block size partitions are one ssd drive partitioned into two equal size volumes, NTFS formatted with the appropriate block size, this removes the SSD drive controller performance from the equation, the partitions have the same drive controller.
• The source video and image files are identical on both partitions.
• The two projects used for the export test have identical movie settings, one project sources the media from the 4K block drive and the other the 64k drive.
• The export settings for both projects are identical and the destination drive is the same folder on the 3rd SSD drive.
• As I mentioned above, both exports were set to 29.97 fps this ensured a full re-encode, this also removes any potential for 'smart copying'.
• The comparisons of the exports are relative to each other for my system, other users will get different export times, however relatively they are meaningful.

System performance wise the following were observed during both export tests

CPU usage was between 6 and 8%

The source file drives and destination drive usage were between 6 and 9 %

Intel iGPU (UHD 630) usage was below 3 %

RTX 2060 usage was 95 to 100%

John EB

@johnebaker @me_again @AAProds

Hi John.

On reflection what I should have written was

'There may be too many variables of individuals user cases in how they distribute their files across a system for conclusive individual results'.

It was in no way intended to cast aspersions on your methodology or conclusion as to the results. On the contrary, it mirrors somewhat tests I did myself a long time ago when trying to get the best performance out of my usage of my daw and Photoshop way back in Win 98 days before NTFS was a thing. Hence my original comment at the top of this topic of awaiting other peoples conclusions as we are only taking about the impact of cluster sizes to relative performance.

As for myself, I have always used the Windows default setting of 4K clusters as being adequate. I think if I recall it correctly I only gained about a 4% increase in file capacity over using larger cluster sizes. Filling the hard drive in the SATA hard drive days and not leaving enough free space was more detrimental to performance than cluster sizes.

I have, since having enough SSDs to work with, used a dedicated SSD for projects. The drive I use is quite small and never has more than two video projects active on it at any one time. The drive has never been to my knowledge a hindrance to a projects performance as much as not having enough ram has been. Using all four ram slots rather than having two larger capacity ram sticks only occupying two ram slots is also in my experience not as good performance wise and wish I had bought two 32 gig sticks rather than adding two 16 gig sticks later to my existing two 16GB sticks.

Unfortunately I often find my video projects using more than 32 gigs of ram due to the amount of additional effects I use such as Pip using SPR for logo / watermarking as well as tweaking the contrast / colour / sharpness and titling effects. Altering audio with compressor, limiter and other enhancing effects also seems to have quite an impact on playback within the timeline. Export times vary depending on codec choice, frame rate and resolution as well as those bits already mentioned above.

Ray.