Most client machines don't have multiple drives mirrored either. I was thinking purely in a server setting when I made the comments, though I'll admit that I didn't specify.

A HD with two head systems still wouldn't match an SSD for random reads, but it'd be much better than one. Depending on the use it's seeing, it could even employ different algorithms depending on the use mode it's seeing to help speed things along. In addition, more cache might help it during a large sequential read, allowing the heads to leapfrog each other better. Like I said - engineering and programming nightmare, but an interesting thought experiment.

You're talking about how the system queues multiple data(read/write) requests with the drive, and the drive possibly delivering them out of order(because it's using an optimized path to collect all the data), right?

I assumed that capability from the start. The REAL trick to the system is that to date it's one read head per platter, thus one device serving all the data. With two head systems, the question comes up of how you optimally assign said demands between the two head systems to most efficiently move the data.

This is actually a very interesting proposal. While I imagine the engineering and programming would be a relative nightmare*, it would provide a number of options for hard drives.

While it wouldn't double performance in most cases, especially not sequential operations, for random operations it'd be almost as good as two drives. Maybe better if the access is typically really random and one head can 'field' mostly the outer disc calls while the other catches the inner disk ones.

*Just look at the difference between programming a single thread application and multi-threading!

I should probably have put some disclaimers in my post about affordability and suitability. I'm not a refresh snob but I can't help but think that 30Hz is a bit slow for gaming, perhaps even video watching.

The problem isn't the name calling. It is that the name calling actually works on people too lazy to think for themselves. They get their marching orders from whatever talking point memo is out (both Left and Right wing) and march in formation.

And while I don't agree with many people politically, I at least have respect and can converse with people I don't agree with, if they at least have a reason for their political beliefs (wrong or right). I often have common ground with people I normally wouldn't agree with, because my viewpoints are reasoned, and sometimes we have the same reasons for the same views.

Above all, the drones are massive and collectively drown out the reasoned voices. And this is to our own shame!

Or, in other words .... "what could possibly go wrong???"

Which, means, they should be merged and brought back together.

This is the unfortunate case of Open Source failure, and a pretty big one IMHO. The fact that they remain split is huge problem, because now I cannot recommend either, even though they are both decent. I have no idea which one will actually survive and prosper, or which one will die a slow painful death. Merging them is really the only REAL solution for my concerns.

I am an American and only 2 American print magazines come as close as The Economist does to my pov. Those are Reason magazine and Liberty magazine.

Falcon Wolf

I loved reading Byte! starting from the beginning. Reading what hardware and software hackers, who followed hacker ethics not the criminals called hackers in the press today, were doing was terrific. My two favorite columns were Steve Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, which is now a compleat magazine of it's own, and Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor.

Falcon Wolf

Agreed

Falcon Wolf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Actually, try changing the things that are "explanations" and you'll start to find that they are also "excuses". Offer up solutions to end the "explanations" and you'll likely get a slew of reasons why it isn't possible, mainly from the very people who profit by keeping the status quo, but have "compassion" for the plight.

If the US ARMY is doing anything against US citizens, it is proof of tyranny, as they are forbidden by current law (posse comitatus) from engaging US Citizens.

And just so you know, I oppose the militarization of law enforcement (giving police tanks and such).
 

I guess, if I say I am not a moron you'd still argue, so I won't.

But what I will say is that well armed citizenry can be more than just a bug to be squashed. And yes, I do think that citizens with Paramilitary grade weapons do stand a chance against militarized government agencies. All you have to do is remember what two well armed guys in Hollywood pulled off during a bank heist. Not to mention the Taliban and Iraqi militia people picking off our troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

And you've actually helped make my point, the whole point of gun control is for government to control guns. And this is the very thing I am protesting. The whole "there is no need" argument fails right here, because government will always create a "need" to have bigger better guns than citizens. And that is exactly how tyrants control their citizens.

From the sounds of it, you actually support government with big guns and likewise do not believe Tyranny can happen here. Those that do not know history, are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, those of us who do know history are too few to do anything about it.

Do you have data to prove that? If so share it.

Falcon Wolf