22 Dec
2006
22 Dec
'06
3:13 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Hmm, that's interesting. I suppose it depends on whether those multiple heads
are referenced independently, or whether they're only there to improve latency
(and hence from an interfacing point of view you still only reference two
surfaces, but the electronics are smart enough to 'use' the head which happens
to be nearest to the data that you want)
Personally I
prefer to talk in terms of 'surface number' rather than 'head
number', as a given surface could conceivably have more than one head in order
Well, if I had a drive with, say, 2 surfaces, 2 heads per surface, and
100 positions those heads could be moved to, I'd probably call it 100
cylinders, 4 heads, since logically it's the same as 4 surfaces with one
head per surface. Calling it 200 cylinders, 2 surfaces, while correct,
would seem to be as confusing as clalling it 400 tracks