RAID0 and BLOCK SIZE revisited

I know this has been up earlier on this forum, but the answers are deviating, to say the least. I've also read some articles witout getting any wiser.

I'm about to set up two new disks (WD 80GB JB) in a RAID0 stripe set. I'm running WinXP and using NTFS. I use the computer for pleasure and some business. Games, OfficeXP, photos, more games etc... So, I'm using both small files and large files! I do NOT overclock.

Which BLOCK SIZE should I choose? 16k or 64k?? Or 32k??? Or maybe only 4k????

Can anyone answer this, or is it impossible to answer...???

Cheers, Gloin

I think 16K is the best... from what i have read http://www.rojakpot.com/Speed_Demonz/IDE_RAID/RAID_01.htm

I would stay away from 64K myself.

Hey jay,
best document on RAID I've seen. Thanks a lot. Will choose 16k as I have today...

Gloin

The CPU utilization with 32k blocks/32k stripes is minimized. And performance is excellent. The generic rule of thumb is that 64k blocks are optimum for maximum transfer rate at any cost, but 32k blocks seem "snappier". I like 32k blocks/32k clusters. You can use Partition Magic to change cluster size for experimentation without data loss ...Mark

OK, but how do you change the block size within Partition Magic on an NTFS partition? Can't find it's possible...

You know something I don't?

Gloin