From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
To: Alex <creamyfish@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is this enough for us to have triple-parity RAID?
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:20:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F97515D.8000406@hardwarefreak.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMqP1GWR2-_a=+FTJOsjK9W48zCUVd3smsF63x=+-PimBPzAXQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/23/2012 10:26 AM, Alex wrote:
> It looks like to me Ostler's team's work does independently lead to an
> increase in areal density and writing speed, and
> there is not fixed relation between these two.
That's because you've not taken 60 seconds to actually think about this
logically.
Data rate is a product of [density * RPM]. To increase data rate we
must increase one of these two. Making the R/W head simply punch holes
faster won't increase data rate. It will allow simply allow us to
increase the other two without the R/W head becoming a bottleneck.
Designing the R/W head to punch bits 1000x faster cannot independently
increase throughput. The platter must either have more bits per inch or
they must spin faster. Period.
Thus, the only way this laser R/W head will increase throughput is if it
simultaneously writes more bits per inch, which increases density,
allowing. So again, unless it increases density, the faster punching
speed doesn't increase throughput.
--
Stan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-25 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-17 6:11 Is this enough for us to have triple-parity RAID? Alex
2012-04-17 7:58 ` David Brown
2012-04-17 16:37 ` Stefan /*St0fF*/ Hübner
2012-04-18 14:15 ` Alex
2012-04-18 14:11 ` David Brown
2012-04-17 17:16 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-17 20:18 ` David Brown
2012-04-17 20:54 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-18 18:22 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-18 20:20 ` David Brown
2012-04-18 20:39 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-19 18:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-20 2:27 ` Alex
2012-04-20 3:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-20 3:32 ` Alex
2012-04-20 18:58 ` David Brown
2012-04-20 19:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-20 21:04 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-20 21:01 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-20 21:29 ` Peter Grandi
2012-04-20 22:31 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-21 9:51 ` Peter Grandi
2012-04-21 11:18 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-22 3:14 ` Alex
2012-04-22 8:57 ` Piergiorgio Sartor
2012-04-20 7:45 ` Stan Hoeppner
2012-04-23 15:26 ` Alex
2012-04-25 1:20 ` Stan Hoeppner [this message]
2012-04-25 2:45 ` Alex
2012-04-25 16:59 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin
2012-04-25 19:29 ` David Brown
2012-04-26 2:30 ` Alex
2012-04-27 15:15 ` Emmanuel Noobadmin
2012-05-01 16:38 ` Alex
2012-04-26 4:24 ` Alex
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F97515D.8000406@hardwarefreak.com \
--to=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
--cc=creamyfish@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).