Wols Lists wrote: > On 13/11/2024 23:10, Dale wrote: >> My question is this. Given they cost about $20 more, from what I've >> found anyway, is it worth it? Is there a downside to this new set of >> heads being added? I'm thinking a higher failure rate, more risk to >> data or something like that. I think this is a fairly new thing, last >> couple years or so maybe. We all know how some new things don't work >> out. > > I think this technology has actually been out for a long time. I'm > sure I've heard of it ages ago. > > Thing is, it's probably one of those things that's been available in > high-end drives for years, but the cost-benefit ratio has been low so > few people bought them. Now presumably the economics have changed. > > If the actuators are mounted opposite each other, then they can't > collide, and presumably can operate completely independent of each > other. The costs of two of them were presumably just deemed not worth it. > > An opposite niche (and rather apposite for you) was when I started > buying disk drives. I think my first was a 2GB Bigfoot, followed by a > 6GB, and I bought several 18GBs for work. They were "old tech", 5.25" > 5200rpm in an era of 3.5" 7500rpm, but their capacities were huge and > cheap. If all you wanted was storage, they were great. Most people > thought the size and speed of the smaller drives was better value, > even if it cost more per meg. > > Cheers, > Wol > >
It may have been available for really expensive hard drives. Those far above what I'd be willing to pay and wouldn't look for. I do find it interesting tho. Why not have three actuators? Or four? If they can all fit in there and not hit each other, it does give the heads more opportunities to be over needed data. Then the port between drive and controller, SATA or maybe SAS, likely becomes a bottle neck. Of course, you can only fit so many in there. Two may be the limit. Drives are fairly small already. Plus there is the heat problem. I remember seeing old drives that had I think 14" platters. They had large motors to spin them. The controller was a separate thing too. I think their capacity was like 30 or 40MBs or so. It usually took two people to move one of those things. The company I worked for upgraded systems twice in the five years I worked for them. Their fastest one ran at a blazingly fast 25MHz. It was RISC based, I think I spelled that right. It was a NCR system. We used old Wyse terminals but that new system was really fast. Except when two or more of those Genicom line printers were running. I think they were the model 4440 or something. The printhead didn't move. It was as wide as the page and printed a whole line at a time, hence the name line printer. They could print far faster than a person could read. Still, those systems are nothing compared to what we have today. Heck, my old video card in my current rig likely has more computing power than the NCR system back then, which could handle 200 to 300 users at a time. How far we have came. Those were the days tho. Dale :-) :-)
