There have been muti-readhead disk drives -- https://blog.seagate.com/craftsman-ship/multi-actuator-technology-a-new-performance-breakthrough/
OR -- https://www.anandtech.com/show/14066/western-digital-to-demo-dual-actuator-hdds-next-week
As long as they spin, and the head has to seek, HDDs won't compete with SSDs performance.So to make hard drives speed up to compete with SSDs, why don't they add more than one needle to read the platters, just on opposite sides of eachother so they don't interfere with eachother? Why is this not a thing?
And it still won't be anywhere near a basic SSD.That's 2 readers each reading half the platters... What I mean is this....
2 readers that can both read all the platters at the same time. We've always had 1 needle that reads all platters, why don't we have 2 needles that both read all platters?
15,000 RPM Seagate Cheetah10000 RPM HDDs exist, which in theory would double the performance of a 5900rpm drive like your method would.
However,
The 10000rpm drives cost a ton and are slower than SSDs. They made sense when they were faster than most HDDs and SSDs weren't available much.
And it still won't be anywhere near a basic SSD.
Amazing that all the designers and engineers at the billion dollar companies have not made this yet.Ok so then make it 4 readers, one on each side of the disc. Make it so they wont interfere. Then they could be close to the speed of a traditional 2.5" SSD. But we can have capacities up to 16TB. A 4TB SSD would be like $600 USD right now, around the same price as a 12TB HDD. But that 12TB HDD with 4 readers, one on each side, not interfering with eachother would probably be about the same speed as an SSD
Or maybe they thought of it and there is a very fatal flaw with that design. Reliability. The data centers that need 16tb need reliability. Hard drives with 1 read head are fragile enough, not four.Amazing that all the designers and engineers at the billion dollar companies have not made this yet.
Maybe they were just waiting for you to come up with the idea?
Amazing that all the designers and engineers at the billion dollar companies have not made this yet.
Maybe they were just waiting for you to come up with the idea?
Reliability. Just more complexity. More difficult firmware to write. More testing required. Just no bang for the buck, IMO.And that's what I was asking. Why is this not a thing?
Complexity, fragility, reduced reliability, cost....all beaten by an SSD.And that's what I was asking. Why is this not a thing?
And that's what I was asking. Why is this not a thing?
um...I have a small 'car' that mows grass. It lives in my backyard.Becuase the benefits don't outweigh the drawbacks. If they wanted to, carmakers could sell a car that also has a button that allows it to mow grass. But nobody wants that.
And it sounds like a lawnmower. Must be a Honda!um...I have a small 'car' that mows grass. It lives in my backyard.
4 wheels, headlights, steering wheel...
Hey, I've driven over to the neighbors house!And it sounds like a lawnmower. Must be a Honda!
Becuase the benefits don't outweigh the drawbacks. If they wanted to, carmakers could sell a car that also has a button that allows it to mow grass. But nobody wants that.