SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : QUANTUM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7336)2/16/1998 1:23:00 PM
From: John Biddle  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9124
 
Good point. Is that because on a percentage basis, most use of the drive isn't able to benefit from the head not having to move?

Is it also true that each head is read from in series, rather than in parallel? It seems that if they were read from in parallel the more heads the better.



To: Frodo Baxter who wrote (7336)2/16/1998 2:14:00 PM
From: Gottfried  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9124
 
Lawrence, >>If this was true, an 8 head/4 plate 8.4G hard drive would be much faster than a 2 head/1 plate 2.1G drive. It isn't.<<

John was asking why they don't have more than one head per surface.
In your example, there is one head per surface for both drives.
The reason this isn't done is, of course, cost.

GM


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News