If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
new faster disk design idea
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
- C - wrote: 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? Sort of. You've obviously never seen a Univac Fastrand drum (64 heads visible under plexiglass). 1968. $170k for 90MB with performance specs almost as fast a modern CD reader. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/univac/fastrand.html IBM 2305 disk had a head per track ( a rousing 11MB, with zero seek time.) (late 70's into the 80's. cost as much as a house.) I think it needed water cooling. Multiple heads per surface was a maintenance (or reliability) nightmare and was only used at the bleading edge of what's possible, which is definatly not mass market retail. If you think about it, the huge storage arrays that corporations are buying are the current incarnation of your idea; hundreds of heads over spinning data, but each head has it's own spindle. WIth proper I/O subsystem design this gives you the access times and transfer rates you are looking for, See http://www.emc.com/products/systems/DMX_series.jsp? openfolder=storage_systems Disk drives have gotten lots better, trust me. -- Al Dykes ----------- adykes at p a n i x . c o m |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:05:46 GMT in comp.arch.storage, "- C -"
wrote: 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? IIRC it was done on the IBM 3380E (double density -- two heads) and IBM 3380K (triple density -- three heads), same rotational speed and same track-track and max seek times AFAIK, with the heads dangling below the arms, for less than double or triple the not inconsiderable price ($10/MB). So what typically happened was drives were consolidated 2(/3) to 1, saving money, space, power etc., but that increased the number of files and I/Os per drive by 2(/3), and also reduced the number of simultaneous I/Os, seeks, and transfers by 2(/3), resulting in worse overall performance. If the drives had been addressed as if they had more tracks/cylinder instead of more cylinders, and used for only sequentially accessed files, users might have seen benefits. More than three heads per were probably tried but may have had problems with arm mass, flutter, head-track registration, flying height, or various other physical considerations you can probably think of. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net,
- C - wrote: So... why not have multiple heads on each surface? Whoa, what's next, 8-track? Disco? The Nixon presidency over again? This was common in the '70s, but the heavier the head is the slower it can move and the more complicated *stuff* you have on the head the heavier it is and the less reliable it is. It's an idea whose time has gone... -- I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-' Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U` |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Clinging to sanity, - C - mumbled in his beard: [more heads on platters] Yo! Didn't HP have a prototype that went in that direction? Only they did not have just more heads, but duplicated the whole electronics/heads/arms part, essentially 2 independent drives accessing the same spindle. The aim was to increase number of transactions/time, not bandwidth. The name kittyhawk bounces around in my head, but I can't find anything in google right now. cheers - -- vbi - -- Baker's First Law of Federal Geometry: A block grant is a solid mass of money surrounded on all sides by governors. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: get my key from http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/92082481 iKcEARECAGcFAkDPKxtgGmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J0eXR3by5jaC9sZW dhbC9ncGcvZW1h aWwuMjAwMjA4MjI/dmVyc2lvbj0xLjUmbWQ1c3VtPTVkZmY4NjhkMTE4NDMyNzYw NzFiMjVlYjcwMDZkYTNlAAoJEIukMYvlp/fWtDEAoO/i5V4MPnXjaoRt/0F0m+Sc ide+AJ9afnn7J75103KtzGLeAdKi7GtgRw== =N1sY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Such a SCSI drive was commercially shipped about 5 years ago....the Seagate
ST12450W. "- 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? Not feasible generally. Only a single head per physically actuator can be active at any given time as the track servo following can only follow one master at a time. The ST12450W had two complete head/actuator systems. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"- 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? Because, as others have noted, it increases the mass and inertia of the assembly. When you get twice the capacity as a result (as you do with a head on each side of a platter, using a single arm), it's worth it; otherwise, it isn't. 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. No, you don't - not anything like it. In fact, performance may well get worse. The only way to significantly decrease the movement required for an average seek is to make that bar nearly as wide as the disk surface (otherwise, you still have to move it almost as far to get to a track 1/3 of the surface away). That makes the bar *much* more massive, so it takes longer both to move it a given distance and to stabilize it once it reaches its destination. The ultimate such 'bar' has already been described: it has a head for each track on the surface, and doesn't move at all - and in fact was therefore a performance win (though at significant cost). That was feasible 'way back when, but at current track densities there's nowhere nearly enough room for a head per track on such a bar. Using multiple arms to access a single platter has also been mentioned. However, you can get nearly the same effect simply by using two conventional disks (plus get twice the capacity in the process) - and the production efficiencies of using standard units make this a cheaper solution than a single, low-volume dual-armed disk. - bill |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Reaugh wrote:
Such a SCSI drive was commercially shipped about 5 years ago....the Seagate ST12450W. But the heads operating in parallel were very close to each other. If that were different, thermal expansion would mean one of the heads would mistrack. Thomas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Todd" wrote in message ...
"- 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? Because, as others have noted, it increases the mass and inertia of the assembly. When you get twice the capacity as a result (as you do with a head on each side of a platter, using a single arm), it's worth it; otherwise, it isn't. 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. No, you don't - not anything like it. In fact, performance may well get worse. The only way to significantly decrease the movement required for an average seek is to make that bar nearly as wide as the disk surface (otherwise, you still have to move it almost as far to get to a track 1/3 of the surface away). That makes the bar *much* more massive, so it takes longer both to move it a given distance and to stabilize it once it reaches its destination. Not to mention that you're only optimizing away the fastest part of the seek. Head acceleration, deceleration and settling time and whatnot are all still there for the nominally shorter seeks, and, as you mentioned, will probably get slower due to increased arm mass. And given that most seeks are quite short anyway, you'd need a lot of heads to make this even marginally effective. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Invalid system disk | seabat | Homebuilt PC's | 23 | November 21st 04 03:03 AM |
P4S333 hard drive capacity | Katy | Asus Motherboards | 6 | September 19th 04 04:26 AM |
Why Boot and System Disk? | mo | Asus Motherboards | 1 | September 5th 04 10:01 AM |
SATA disk, slow? | Tomaz Koritnik | General | 5 | June 6th 04 04:13 AM |
Nero 6 Burn Rom - Help file, cd-rw disks, cd audio/data combination disk | Bun Mui | Cdr | 2 | January 12th 04 01:26 AM |