From: Andrew Scott Beals (bandy_at_ricochet.net)
Date: Sat Apr 22 2000 - 15:18:18 EDT
But the head assembly has less moving to do as well. You pays your money, you
takes your chances.
It's nice that we finally got faster access to RAM, but disk i/o is just so slow
compared to what it was years and years ago, relative to processor speed.
Michael Geary wrote:
> > A fatter drive by definition has a capacity and performance increase
> > over a thinner drive of equal media density and rpm. Because a 17mm
> > drive has more platters/heads, data is read/written faster when
> > compared to a 12.5 (or thinner) drive. A 17mm drive could have 5
> platters,
> > so 10 heads. Whereas a 12.5mm would have only 3 platters and 6 heads. 10
> > heads handles more data that 6. 40% more. That's a lot of real
> performance
> > where it counts. The thick drive stores 40% more data too.
>
> Do they read/write using multiple heads in parallel? I thought they used one
> head at a time, which would mean there's no speed advantage to having more
> platters. (And perhaps a slight speed disadvantage because the head assembly
> has more mass to move around.) Of course, I could be mistaken about this...
>
> -Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:59 EST