actually i stand corrected, i just read the actual article. it is GMR, wow. ill look before i post next time. sorry about that. still i think people need to work on the disc itself in terms of storage in order for theer to be 'no end' to the HDD density increase.
actually TMR read heads offer a much larger change in resistance than GMR readheads, generally all read heads are TMR based, if you check the pictures put up on http://www.news.com/2300-1041_3-6213399-2.html?tag=ne.gall.pg then you can see that it is infact TMR based read head. i guess someone got it wrong with GMR somewhere along the line. that sad however it is more difficult to scale the TMR head when compared the the GMR head. im still sure its TMR based though.
the real problem with storage density though is the disk itself and not really the read head, since the information is stored on the disk as magnetic information, there is a limit to how small the a space the data can physically occupy on the disk (imagine it like two magnets being squeezed closer and closer together, eventually they will interfere with each other) since the advent of Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR) the density has increased.
also the write head is still quite large, and some companies try to use lasers to heat up the area below the write head, this has the effect of making the magnetisation on the disk easier to switch. research on this is particularly active in the university of nijmegen in the netherlands.
maybe solid state will get better than hardrives, but until the price is comparable the magnetic recording industry wont really stop, so we can look forward to increasing HDD density. which leaves lots of storage for us end users:) maybe we dont need 4TB per disk, but it doesnt hurt to have it eh?
Slashdot Mirror
actually i stand corrected, i just read the actual article. it is GMR, wow. ill look before i post next time. sorry about that. still i think people need to work on the disc itself in terms of storage in order for theer to be 'no end' to the HDD density increase.
actually TMR read heads offer a much larger change in resistance than GMR readheads, generally all read heads are TMR based, if you check the pictures put up on http://www.news.com/2300-1041_3-6213399-2.html?tag=ne.gall.pg then you can see that it is infact TMR based read head. i guess someone got it wrong with GMR somewhere along the line. that sad however it is more difficult to scale the TMR head when compared the the GMR head. im still sure its TMR based though.
:) maybe we dont need 4TB per disk, but it doesnt hurt to have it eh?
the real problem with storage density though is the disk itself and not really the read head, since the information is stored on the disk as magnetic information, there is a limit to how small the a space the data can physically occupy on the disk (imagine it like two magnets being squeezed closer and closer together, eventually they will interfere with each other) since the advent of Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR) the density has increased.
also the write head is still quite large, and some companies try to use lasers to heat up the area below the write head, this has the effect of making the magnetisation on the disk easier to switch. research on this is particularly active in the university of nijmegen in the netherlands.
maybe solid state will get better than hardrives, but until the price is comparable the magnetic recording industry wont really stop, so we can look forward to increasing HDD density. which leaves lots of storage for us end users