title: SQL Server 2000 Page size and the NTFS page size
body: <p>In the Oracle world, it's been gospel to build your database block size to be even multiples of the File system's block size. I assume this is still true but I'm not adverse to being told why technology has made this irrelevant.</p>
  
  <p>But I've been told some SQL Server DBA's are going to upgrade the OS of a SS2000 installation to 64bit to get 64k pages in the FS.</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li><p>Does SQL Server 2000 support changing the page size?</p></li>
  <li><p>From what I've read it's fixed at 8k. Is that right?</p></li>
  <li><p>If it is fixed at 8k, would there be any advantage to making the FS 64k?</p></li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>I'm getting this information from a reliable source but none-the-less second hand.</p>
  
  <p>EDIT: Thanks to SAMBO, I've read the links and found the specification for </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>"NTFS Allocation Unit Size" be set to 64Kb</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I assume that term = Block Size...</p>
  
  <p>So the conflict I have between 8k DB blocks and 64k FS blocks is in fact the recommended setup from MS. </p>