h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Given that heads are thin film technology, and that control electronics gets cheaper every year; at some point it will become cheaper to make a hard drive with no head movement servo at all; but one stationary head per track instead. WOuld increase read and write speeds too in proportion to th3e number
of heads. Same idea works for cd-rom and dvd of course.
Fixed-head mainframe disk, circa 1975
http://www.gizmodo....hnically-018574.php
"Each track therefore had its own head, so the seek time was zero - you just electronically switched heads." [krelnik, Oct 17 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Damn! I was hoping stationary had been misspelled and this was about a paper headband. |
|
| |
Actually, this is the way disk drives were made originally, back in the days when the disk platters were half a meter across and the drive cost $100,000. See link for a picture. |
|
| |
I think track spacing is too tight. The
other problem would be data rate - a
single head can read up to 100MB/s
with 15K Atlas drives. That would be
approximate 50GB/s (given that there
are about 1000 tracks on a 3.5" platter). |
|
| |
Far bigger savings would be in seak
times, which would be reduced to
rotational latency. Unfortunately, I think
high capacity flash drives will reign
supreme as there's no latency at all. |
|
| |
I imagine the heads distributed over the surface in a Fibbonaci spiral like the seeds in a sunflower. |
|
| |
Read and write speeds would not increase in _direct_ proportion to the number of heads; there are overheads in parallel data processing and transmission meaning the speed increase is less than you might expect. |
|
| |