NTFS cluster size for RAID array

[Jeroen1000]

I know 4096 byte won't cut it as I'm putting about ten 2 TiB drives in Raid 6. Over time it is not inconceivable that those drives are upgraded to 4 TiB.
So it is either 8192 bytes or 16883 bytes. I took the latter. But, was this a bright idea or am I doomed to start over real soon?

So the largest cluster size gives me a 64 TiB limit, which is overkill for 2 * 10 = 20 TiB - 4 TiB (for RAID 6)= 16 TiB
However, if I were to upgrade at some point to 10 * 4 TiB drives, yielding 40 TiB - 8 TiB = 32 TiB, a 8192 cluster size would just (edit done here due to mistake on my part) cut it (8192 = 32 TiB limit).

So, what did you guys with a lot of experience prefer?

 

[houkouonchi]

I would go ahead and just use 32 KB or 64 KB as the size so you can expand if you need to in the future. The only real disadvantage to this is that small files <32kb or <64kb will end up taking that much space. Many people (especially consumers) that use arrays that large are mainly for storing large media files so that overhead should be no big deal. Performance wise it really shouldn't make much of a difference either way.

 

[Jeroen1000]

I am indeed storing large media files. I guess I'm fine with 16883 for quite a long time then. I was mainly concerned about adverse side effects but the overhead does not seem that bad as I feared.

 

[BENN0]

I had the same question when planning my storage server and went with 32KB in the end.
I don't think there a real significant performance difference unless you are doing something very specific with the storage.