new faster disk design idea

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:08:31 -0600, "dafon" wrote:

GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR
WITH 18 BLADES.

No need to be derogatory. It was a legitimate question.

True. No need to be derogatory.
It just felt good!
"Mark Landin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:08:31 -0600, "dafon" wrote:

GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A
RAZOR
WITH 18 BLADES.

No need to be derogatory. It was a legitimate question.

Hi,

Actually its not a bad idea to have 2 heads attached to one arm in such
a way that if one is over the outermost cylinder the other is over the
innermost cylinder(ps see fig.). by doing this, you cut down both the
seek time and the rotational latency by approx 50%.This can be a
feasible first step towards faster disks.



Spindle
|
|
___ V ___
Head 1 -- |___\ . /___| -- Head 2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\______/
||
||
||
|-----|
| | -- Actuator
|_____|




Akheel



dafon wrote:
GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR
WITH 18 BLADES.


"- C -" wrote in message
hlink.net...

If you ever opened a hard drive, you will see a couple of platters and an
arm that has a head for each surface. So if 2 platters, then 4 surfaces

and

4 heads. The arm moves the heads across the platters and the platters
rotate, so any spot on the disk can be seeked with both movement together.

So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads
evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching

at

the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each
bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time.

Good or bad idea? Feasible?

Clayton

Did you read the thread for this topic before you posted ? I guess not.


In article , Akheel Ahmed wrote:
Hi,

Actually its not a bad idea to have 2 heads attached to one arm in such
a way that if one is over the outermost cylinder the other is over the
innermost cylinder(ps see fig.). by doing this, you cut down both the
seek time and the rotational latency by approx 50%.This can be a
feasible first step towards faster disks.



Spindle
|
|
___ V ___
Head 1 -- |___\ . /___| -- Head 2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\______/
||
||
||
|-----|
| | -- Actuator
|_____|




Akheel



dafon wrote:
GREAT IDEA! WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE RAZOR BUSINESS AND MAKE A RAZOR
WITH 18 BLADES.


"- C -" wrote in message
hlink.net...

If you ever opened a hard drive, you will see a couple of platters and an
arm that has a head for each surface. So if 2 platters, then 4 surfaces

and

4 heads. The arm moves the heads across the platters and the platters
rotate, so any spot on the disk can be seeked with both movement together.

So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads
evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching

at

the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each
bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time.

Good or bad idea? Feasible?

Clayton








--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

"Akheel Ahmed" wrote in message
...
Hi,

Actually its not a bad idea to have 2 heads attached to one arm in such
a way that if one is over the outermost cylinder the other is over the
innermost cylinder(ps see fig.). by doing this, you cut down both the
seek time and the rotational latency by approx 50%.This can be a
feasible first step towards faster disks.


Nope, doesn't work. Read up on servo track following.

In article k.net,
- C - wrote:

So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads
evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at
the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each
bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time.

Blue sky time:

Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable
bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has
thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its
surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the
outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track
seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading
and writing to from multiple parallel heads at the same time is possible
using this non-moving set of heads, then head switch time can be reduced.
Perhaps rotational latency can even be reduced by placing multiples of
these bar ICs above the platter and using them simultaniously.

Feasible today? Feasible tomorrow? Or just an impractical bunch of BS
both now and forever?

I think likely something totally different (and technologically much less
Rube Goldberg oriented) will come along to make the whole rotating platter
storage media concept obsolete -- long before stuff like the above
ever becomes practical.

- Dan

In article ,
Ron Reaugh wrote:

Nope, doesn't work. Read up on servo track following.

Perhaps if you can have thousands and thousands of little heads on an
imovable IC that floats above the platter and covers the platter from
the inside to the outside edge (in the shape of a bar), with each head
having a width on the order of a transistor etched onto the surface of
the IC, you can do your servo track following by switching between
adjacent heads as the track "wanders." Likely impractical with today's
technology, eh?

- Dan

wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
- C - wrote:

So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of
heads
evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm
attaching at
the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each
bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time.

Blue sky time:

Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable
bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has
thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its
surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the
outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track
seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading
and writing to from multiple parallel heads at the same time is possible
using this non-moving set of heads, then head switch time can be reduced.
Perhaps rotational latency can even be reduced by placing multiples of
these bar ICs above the platter and using them simultaniously.

Feasible today? Feasible tomorrow? Or just an impractical bunch of BS
both now and forever?

I think likely something totally different (and technologically much less
Rube Goldberg oriented) will come along to make the whole rotating platter
storage media concept obsolete -- long before stuff like the above
ever becomes practical.

If you spin the disks backwards then negative polarity magnetics can be read
faster.

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:31:52 GMT, wrote:

In article k.net,
- C - wrote:

So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads
evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at
the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each
bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time.

Blue sky time:

Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable
bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has
thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its
surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the
outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track
seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading
and writing to from multiple parallel heads at the same time is possible
using this non-moving set of heads, then head switch time can be reduced.
Perhaps rotational latency can even be reduced by placing multiples of
these bar ICs above the platter and using them simultaniously.

Feasible today? Feasible tomorrow? Or just an impractical bunch of BS
both now and forever?


chuckle Feasible 30 years ago? I ran one on a Data General mini back in the
late 70s. Of course, the storage capacity was a bit smaller then. They were
called 'fixed-head' or 'head-per-track' disks. Damned expensive, as I recall.






--
tim boyer

ffOn Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:31:52 GMT in comp.arch.storage,
wrote:

In article k.net,
- C - wrote:

So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Imagine a row of heads
evenly spaced out on a bar at a right angle to the arm, the arm attaching at
the middle of the bar, forming a T shape. If there were 10 heads on each
bar, then you get 10x speed and 1/10 lateral seek time.

Greater head mass slows the arm and takes longer to settle.

Perhaps we can eliminate the arm altogether and instead place an imovable
bar shaped IC above and perpendicular to the platter. The IC has
thousands upon thousands of little read and write heads etched onto its
surface to cover a small swath of the platter from the inside edge to the
outside edge. No head movement. No settling time. Zero track to track

If they could make heads so small, they would have done so already,
and seek time would be reduced somewhat proportional to the mass.

seek time. Just rotational latency and head switch time. If reading

Rotational latency is the current bottleneck, as heavier platters spin
slower and lighter platters shatter due to rotational stress. Current
need is for lighter, stronger, cheap substrates that can spin faster,
and have magnetic media permanently bonded to them.

--
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada

(Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
fake address use address above to reply