A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Harddisks: Seek, Read, Write, Read, Write, Slow ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 15th 04, 08:13 AM
Marc de Vries
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Harddisks: Seek, Read, Write, Read, Write, Slow ?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:38:50 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
wrote:
snip
Is this a hardware issue ? ( Harddisk Read Head and Harddisk Write Head
can't work together like this and an extra seek is needed ? )


There are NOT two heads


Yes there are, you mighty clueless one.


Actually, the document you quote seems to prove you wrong.
A bit of sloppy writing in the document that confused you probably.

"The head consists of a thin film inductive write element and an MR read element.


"The head consists..." Now, english is not my native language, but I
think "the head" clearly indicates ONE head. Otherwise they would
have said "the heads"

But that single head has two elements: a write element and a read
element.

The read element is typically narrower than the write element to improve the
off-track performance. In practice, there is an offset between the center of
the read and write elements due to the longitudinal separation of the elements.
When used with a rotary actuator, the head is skewed with respect to the tracks
as the actuator moves across the disk. The result is a lateral offset between the
read and write head centerlines.


This statement is completely logical when you have one head with two
elements. It doesn't make sense when you would have two seperate
heads.

Optimum performance is achieved by centering the read head over the data track
for read operations, and centering the write head over the data track for write
operations. This operation will cause the read head to be partially off-track
during a write operation. "


Here the confusion starts. The document suddenly speaks about "read
heads".
But that doesn't make any sense when you compare it to the first part
of the document. But if you replace the words "read head" and "write
head" with "read element" and "write element" it makes perfect sense
again.

Source: IBM/HGST http://www.hgst.com/hdd/ipl/oem/tech/noid.htm


Looking at that document it becomes crystal clear that there is only 1
head with a write and a read element, but that the author sometimes
uses "read head" where it should really be "read element".

but just a single head per disk surface. That head both reads and writes

No, it doesn't.


Yes it does. It's clearly shown in that info from IBM/HGST.

but can do only one or the other at a given instant.
There is a finite switch time between read and write mode.


Because of the 2 heads, one aligned behind the other.


One head, with 2 elements. One behind the other.
As you can clearly see in figure 4 on the webpage you have pointed at
yourself.


Marc
  #2  
Old July 15th 04, 02:02 PM
chrisv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Marc de Vries wrote:

One head, with 2 elements. One behind the other.
As you can clearly see in figure 4 on the webpage you have pointed at
yourself.


You mean Rod^Hn was right for once? Is the world coming to an end?

  #3  
Old July 15th 04, 02:55 PM
Marc de Vries
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:02:56 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Marc de Vries wrote:

One head, with 2 elements. One behind the other.
As you can clearly see in figure 4 on the webpage you have pointed at
yourself.


You mean Rod^Hn was right for once? Is the world coming to an end?


When I wrote this I realized that myself too. But I decide not to
point it out, so that the people here wouldn't start worrying.

You have ruined all that....

Now you will be the cause of a huge thread that will go on for weeks
about the end of the world :-)
  #4  
Old July 15th 04, 05:58 PM
Folkert Rienstra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks for proving my point that logically and physically there are two heads,
not one. That the heads can read and write at the same time and read after write
would be possible *IF* there were to be seperate Read and Write channels,
(which there aren't).
Ron Rough made the impression that is was impossible because there is only
one head. That point is false. It's because there is only one R/W channel.

"Marc de Vries" wrote in message
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:38:50 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" wrote:
snip
Is this a hardware issue ? ( Harddisk Read Head and Harddisk Write Head
can't work together like this and an extra seek is needed ? )

There are NOT two heads


Yes there are, you mighty clueless one.


Actually, the document you quote seems to prove you wrong.
A bit of sloppy writing in the document that confused you probably.


Did you consider that that may have confused *you* into thinking that
I am confused? Of course not!


"The head consists of a thin film inductive write element and an MR read element.


"The head consists..." Now, english is not my native language, but I
think "the head" clearly indicates ONE head. Otherwise they would
have said "the heads".


And obviously it is not the "head" that reads and writes but the read
and write elements.
And if you want to be picky (which obviously you are) then call it a
'slider', not a "head".

Yes, that part is indeed sloppy and can confuse what follows later.


But that single head has two elements: a write element and a read element.


Which are later referred to as read and write 'heads'. Thank you.


The read element is typically narrower than the write element to improve the
off-track performance. In practice, there is an offset between the center of
the read and write elements due to the longitudinal separation of the elements.
When used with a rotary actuator, the head is skewed with respect to the tracks
as the actuator moves across the disk. The result is a lateral offset between the
read and write head centerlines.


This statement is completely logical when you have one head with two elements.


Just as logical as a (one) slider has read and write heads.

It doesn't make sense when you would have two seperate heads.


That is what normal people will understand a read and a write element to be.
Logically they are 2 seperate heads rolled into one head element, the 'slider'.


Optimum performance is achieved by centering the read head over the data track
for read operations, and centering the write head over the data track for write
operations. This operation will cause the read head to be partially off-track
during a write operation. "


Here the confusion starts.


No it doesn't. It started earlier.

The document suddenly speaks about "read heads".


Because that is what normal people would call a read element.

But that doesn't make any sense when you compare it to the first part
of the document.


Right. Because it started off wrong there.
Which is understandable when most people will call a slider a 'head'.

The confusion starts when the technical terms and layman terms are used
intertwixed and sliders and elements both get simplified into "heads".

But if you replace the words "read head" and "write head" with
"read element" and "write element" it makes perfect sense again.

Source: IBM/HGST http://www.hgst.com/hdd/ipl/oem/tech/noid.htm


Looking at that document it becomes crystal clear that there is only 1 head


No, there is only one 'slider' with the read and write 'head' on it.

with a write and a read element, but that the author sometimes
uses "read head" where it should really be "read element".


Or used "head" when he should have used 'slider'.


but just a single head per disk surface. That head both reads and writes

No, it doesn't.


Yes it does. It's clearly shown in that info from IBM/HGST.


The slider does not read or write, the head(element)s do.


but can do only one or the other at a given instant.
There is a finite switch time between read and write mode.


Because of the 2 heads, one aligned behind the other.


One head, with 2 elements.


One slider with 2 head(element)s.

One behind the other.
As you can clearly see in figure 4 on the webpage you have pointed at yourself.


Wow, you can read? But can you understand?
So yes, why in the first place do you you think I pointed to that page?
To embarresh myself? Get a clue.



Marc

  #5  
Old July 16th 04, 12:34 AM
Ron Reaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Folkert Rienstra" wrote in message
...
Thanks for proving my point that logically and physically there are two

heads,
not one. That the heads can read and write at the same time and read after

write
would be possible *IF* there were to be seperate Read and Write channels,
(which there aren't).
Ron Rough made the impression that is was impossible because there is only
one head. That point is false. It's because there is only one R/W channel.


That's false the magnetics and physical proximity precludes both being
active simultaneously.


  #6  
Old July 16th 04, 11:34 AM
Marc de Vries
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:58:24 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
wrote:
snip
Wow, you can read? But can you understand?
So yes, why in the first place do you you think I pointed to that page?
To embarresh myself? Get a clue.


You embarrass yourself here every day.

You can attempt to disguise the fact that you were wrong (and that
that page proofed it), by calling the head a slider and the elements
heads but as you can see in the replies here, nobody is fooled by
that.

But please go on embarrassing yourself. It's quite funny.

Marc
  #7  
Old July 16th 04, 08:27 PM
Folkert Rienstra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Marc de Vries" wrote in message
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:58:24 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra" wrote:
snip
Wow, you can read? But can you understand?
So yes, why in the first place do you you think I pointed to that page?
To embarrass myself? Get a clue.


You embarrass yourself here every day.

You can attempt to disguise the fact that you were wrong (and that
that page proofed it), by calling the head a slider and the elements
heads but as you can see in the replies here, nobody is fooled by that.


Except for the fact that that is an obvious and complete lie for
anyone to see, unless you consider all of yourself as everybody,
I am backed up by the front runners in harddisk design http://www.hgst.com/hdd/research http://www.hgst.com/hdd/library/technolo.htm
(several other documents that confirm what I said )

Needless to say more, I would think.


But please go on embarrassing yourself. It's quite funny.


Marc de Vries and Arnie Wagner, now a pair. Two peas in a pot.
Geez am I worried now. LOL.


Marc


  #8  
Old July 26th 04, 02:57 AM
half_pint
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Does the drive 'read ahead' in anticipation of the next read?

This would explain it, would it not?

Anyway just a guess, as I know f*** all about anything.

But I'm happy :O)


half_pint ---------talking bull.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.