Are there any hard drives that exist that have multiple independent read/write heads on the same hard drive platter? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would expect that doing this would solve a lot of disk contention problems in a situation where multiple things are being read/written in parallel. Particularly in the case of database servers and the like. If this has not been done, why not? Is it too expensive? Is it inefficient? Is it too technically difficult? Is it unnecessary?
|
feedback
|
|
It would improve latency by reducing head movements required (by having head set responsible for a specific band of the platter surface or by intelligently moving them for the given workload). It may also reduce the average amount of time the heads wait for the right bit of data to move past once they are in position (if the best positioned head was moved into place for each request). There might also be an in throughput for some use cases if the controller logic were bright enough to see the use pattern and keep the heads in the right general places. But I don't think it will happen due to expense and complexity:
Another similar idea that I've seen discussed is having the heads serving each platter surface move independently, but this is also impractical due to mechanical complexity. | |||||||
feedback
|
|
The actual alternative to this is really SSD (Solid State Disk) drives which doesn't have a head or a platter. These are becoming more and more popular and cheaper by the week. I have done quite a bit of work with these drives and they are impressive to say the least. | |||
|
feedback
|
|
I'm not aware of any manufacturer that builds such an animal but a RAID 0 card and two hard drives accomplish the same thing and more. | |||
|
feedback
|
|
Database servers generally have some form of RAID the extra mechanical complexity required is not worth the gain, when you can use cheaper devices for the same effect. I do remember a CDROM drive that could read data from 7 points at the same time - iirc this was not random, but sequential, allowing the device to read parts of the same file at the same time. It was not so the drive was faster, but quieter (it could spin slower for similar transfer rates). | |||
|
feedback
|
|
There's a good article about this question in the PC Guide. Connor Peripherals used to make such a drive. Apparently the main obstacles were marketing. | |||
|
feedback
|