Question I can't be the first person to think of this idea?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
I don't see what the issue is. You aren't really changing how the hard drive works. You're just adding more readers. Kind of like when CPUs hit the clock speed wall so we added more cores Dual-core hard drive... Lol... No?
You're not the first person to think of this.
It has almost certainly be tossed around, and discarded due to the above reasons, and probably many more.

Get a couple of engineering degrees, and propose your idea to Hitachi.
 

ch33r

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2010
178
1
18,585
0
You're not the first person to think of this.
It has almost certainly be tossed around, and discarded due to the above reasons, and probably many more.

Get a couple of engineering degrees, and propose your idea to Hitachi.
Ok, so then my next question is this, why don't they make it so that the tip of the needle, the tiny little component that actually reads... why don't they make it bigger so it covered more area of the platter and then it can fetch more data in one rotation????
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
Ok, so then my next question is this, why don't they make it so that the tip of the needle, the tiny little component that actually reads... why don't they make it bigger so it covered more area of the platter and then it can fetch more data in one rotation????
Because that's not how the drive works. A head cannot read multiple 'tracks' at once.

In addition, a larger head weighs more, and would move slower.

The current design for the typical hard drive has been refined over several decades. It is what it is.
 

ch33r

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2010
178
1
18,585
0
Because that's not how the drive works. A head cannot read multiple 'tracks' at once.

In addition, a larger head weighs more, and would move slower.

The current design for the typical hard drive has been refined over several decades. It is what it is.
Ok, so why don't they design a new head, something completely new, a piece that doesn't move at all, and stays stationary, and covers the entire width of the platter. Then an entire 500GB single file can be fetched in one rotation. I mean.... rhe actual piece at the end of the head that reads the track is very tiny. So put a bunch of those on one mechanism, all lined up side by side across the platter, stationary, doesn't move. Each one covers one track, side by side. The platter just spins and is covered all across so the "head" (or whatever it would be) doesn't have to move at all

I bet what's going through your mind right now is: "My god you're so stupid, obviously if that was possible, they would have done that"

Yes... I know that.... I get that.... but Im trying to figure out like.... why hasn't this happened?
 
Last edited:

AllanGH

Commendable
Mar 10, 2019
2,110
417
1,740
62
Because the complexity of reading all of the parallel heads is ridiculous to engineer, exorbitantly expensive, and is completely unnecessary.

I recommend some physics, electronics, and engineering courses. Having that set of knowledge would make all of these answers unnecessary.
 

ch33r

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2010
178
1
18,585
0
Ok, answer this. How would you keep all 2,3,4 sets of heads aligned? Just one write in the wrong place and you can kiss your data goodbye. It's difficult enough with the one set used now.

In addition, how would you expect to keep this in the current form factor?
Well, the form factor would have to be expanded a bit, so yes the standard would change. Barring that, I don't know
 

ex_bubblehead

Glorious
Moderator
Well, the form factor would have to be expanded a bit, so yes the standard would change. Barring that, I don't know
So, everyone wanting to install one of these monstrosities would have to buy a new case, power supply (or 2) to accomodate it. Likely to cost a couple of thousand for a usable sized drive as well. Not gonna happen. You've been given many, valid reasons as to exactly why this isn't a thing.
 

ch33r

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2010
178
1
18,585
0
So, everyone wanting to install one of these monstrosities would have to buy a new case, power supply (or 2) to accomodate it. Likely to cost a couple of thousand for a usable sized drive as well. Not gonna happen. You've been given many, valid reasons as to exactly why this isn't a thing.
Ok so what about the other idea I proposed aside from that?
 

ch33r

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2010
178
1
18,585
0
You haven't proposed anything practical so far.
Well there was the one about having 4 heads, one on each side.... but what about this one....

Why don't they design a new head, something completely new, a piece that doesn't move at all, and stays stationary, and covers the entire width of the platter. Then an entire 500GB single file can be fetched in one rotation. I mean.... the actual piece at the end of the head that reads the track is very tiny. So put a bunch of those on one mechanism, all lined up side by side across the platter, stationary, doesn't move. Each one covers one track, side by side. The platter just spins and is covered all across so the "head" (or whatever it would be) doesn't have to move at all
 

ex_bubblehead

Glorious
Moderator
The tracks on a platter are far smaller than you can imagine. You can't fit enough physical heads in, side by side, to take advantage of the areal density of the magnetic storage media.
Not to mention the almost impossibility of producing usable quantities as 100% of those sub micron size heads must be fully operational. A single head failure trashes the entire array. Rough guess $1000 per assembly. Back to 5-6 figure prices for mass storage.
 

ch33r

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2010
178
1
18,585
0
Not to mention the almost impossibility of producing usable quantities as 100% of those sub micron size heads must be fully operational. A single head failure trashes the entire array. Rough guess $1000 per assembly. Back to 5-6 figure prices for mass storage.
Uggh… well theres gotta be some kind of solution here. I mean... mechanical drives have been functionally the same for 50 years. The only difference is now we have SATA speed instead of what we had to start. Something needs to change, because if not, the way I see it.... Hard Drives are basically done because SSDs have dropped in price enough
 
Those are not needles, those are heads similar to tape decks. They cover several tracks at once unlike what needle and grooves do in gramophone but more like stereo and quadraphonic and audio tapes. It's possible for one head to read different streams from different tracks. That's what modern HDDs made faster than old ones. That has more influence on actual data speed than rotational speed.
 

DSzymborski

Illustrious
Moderator
I don't see what the issue is. You aren't really changing how the hard drive works. You're just adding more readers. Kind of like when CPUs hit the clock speed wall so we added more cores Dual-core hard drive... Lol... No?
Sorry to be blunt, but none of this makes any sense. One has physically moving parts, the other has logic gates. Multi-core solutions exist because they scale well and don't dramatically increase the failure rate of CPUs. Your solution for a hard drive doesn't scale well and dramatically increases the failure rate of hard drives.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY