From: "Frank Haber" 

I think what I said was forwards:

o Formated with previous opsys

o Bad luck or whatever causes format to be "unaligned," whatever
boundaries that refers to.

o Convert with XP.

o Get 512-byte clusters.

I saw slow  moves/deletes/copies of large files, with write operations
slowed down more than read.  I was dealing with 5-15G logical volumes at
that point. With an e database of 8000 records/30 fields, a reindex with
NTFS/4k-clusters was 5% slower than FAT, if that.  Half-k clusters were
about 20% slower.  The data started out unfragmented.

On a fragmented disk, SCANDISKs were rattly, but only a little slower with
the small clusters.  The percieved response was down significantly, though.
 Since the client was complaining that NTFS was "more sluggish,"
I thought a few numbers were appropriate.  The client accepted the
conversion, and was glad to get the increased crash resistance.

What do you have?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4