Quick Help me on a computer question.. Please!

posted on December 9th, 2010, 6:25 am

"When referring to hard drives, access time is measured in:"

I got the answer wrong and when i asked the teacher, the teacher basically said " go fuck yourself"

so i was wondering if anyone knows?

posted on December 9th, 2010, 7:02 am

ms(Milli-seconds ) or us (micro-seconds).

access time is determined by a sum of the spin-up time, seek time, rotational delay, and transfer time.

basically how long does it take your computer to find information, access it, and send it back to the cpu for processing.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 7:04 am

my answer would have been this: "seconds"

posted on December 9th, 2010, 12:51 pm

you can measure access time with any time measurement, even years.

the most common measurement is ms i believe.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 2:56 pm

It is measured in RPM rotations(revolutions) per min, the faster the rotation the faster the read and write speed.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 3:08 pm

It is measured in RPM rotations(revolutions) per min, the faster the rotation the faster the read and write speed.

That's clearly incorrect. Access time needs a time measurement.

Rpm is a speed measurement, as it is distance/time.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 3:11 pm

It is measured in RPM rotations(revolutions) per min, the faster the rotation the faster the read and write speed.

ur wrong kestrel. sure the faster the rotation the faster the read/write speed, but this is not the definition of access time. access time (the key word their being time) is how long  does it take to access a certain piece of information whether you be reading it or writing it.

you can measure access time with any time measurement, even years.

the most common measurement is ms i believe.

actually the correct answer would be seconds as seconds is the base unit of time.

so if i was marking the test or whatever, if i was being strict i would only accept seconds as being the only correct answer, however if i wasnt being strict i would accept any form of time measurement years, minutes so long as it was represented correctly (ie if 25us then i would accept 25x10^-6 seconds for example)

posted on December 9th, 2010, 3:16 pm

there is no such thing as a 'base' unit of time. there is si units, which are just a convention.

The question for this test is poorly posed as any time measurement can be used, just some are more useful than others. The more useful ones are the ones that express as simpler numbers for most hard drives. Most hard drives work very fast and an expression in seconds would require lots of decimals. Just like expressing a day as 1/365 years would be silly.

[deathincarn]

posted on December 9th, 2010, 6:41 pm

Last edited by deathincarn on December 9th, 2010, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sure the si unit of time is the second. what i meant by saying base unit, is that all the various measurements of time (milli-second, day, year etc) all stem from the "base unit" of time ie 1 second. as in 60 seconds = 1 minute. perhaps that makes more sense to what i meant.

"expression in seconds would require lots of decimals" thats not necessarily true. for instance 1 pS (pico-second) = 1 x10^-12 seconds (see no decimals there  )  just like your statement of "1/365 years would be silly" no its not u can write like this instead 2.74x10^-3 mY (milli-years) lolz

posted on December 9th, 2010, 6:49 pm

But it's much more concise to say 1 day than 1/365 days or 2.74x10^-3 mY.  And since it's stored in a computer, it's best to use units that require the least use of decimals, scientific notation, etc.

If the question is "When referring to hard drives, access time is measured in:", the answer is probably milliseconds.  Yeah, you can use other units.  But the unit generally used to refer to hard drive access time isn't years, or picoseconds, or hours.  The computer measures the time in milliseconds (probably), so that is the only correct answer.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 8:25 pm

That's clearly incorrect. Access time needs a time measurement.

Rpm is a speed measurement, as it is distance/time.

No im not wrong, i miss understood the question but it is still partially correct it was just incomplete.

Access time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For hard drives, disk access time is determined by a sum of the spin-up time, seek time, rotational delay, and transfer time.

By this explaination it is measured in Milliseconds.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 8:51 pm

No im not wrong, i miss understood the question but it is still partially correct it was just incomplete.

Access time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that link supports my point. if you are gonna use evidence in an argument it helps if the evidence supports your own point

in that case it gives the rpm as the speed, which isnt measuring access time. rpm and access time are certainly very connected, but access time cannot be measured in a unit that isnt time.

its like me saying i weigh 2 inches. inches measures length not mass. to measure access time you must use a temporal measurement.

access time is now measured in ms because hard drives are so fast now.

[Kestrel]

posted on December 9th, 2010, 9:02 pm

Last edited by Kestrel on December 9th, 2010, 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

that link supports my point. if you are gonna use evidence in an argument it helps if the evidence supports your own point

in that case it gives the rpm as the speed, which isnt measuring access time. rpm and access time are certainly very connected, but access time cannot be measured in a unit that isnt time.

its like me saying i weigh 2 inches. inches measures length not mass. to measure access time you must use a temporal measurement.

access time is now measured in ms because hard drives are so fast now.

I just said i miss understood but was still partially correct anyway and provided the evidence to proov that. Never said anything about your point or that you were wrong.

How arrogant are you.... your always trying to convince everyone your right even tho its a very uncommon thing, then procede to explain something again that is now already answered.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 9:09 pm

I just said i miss understood but was still partially correct anyway and provided the evidence to proov that. Never said anything about your point or that you were wrong.

i think you need to review your evidence, it doesnt prove your point. it lends more support to mine.

How arrogant are you.... your always trying to convince everyone your right even tho its a very uncommon thing, then procede to explain something again that is now already answered.

hey, this isnt a personal argument. i am arguing from fact only. so lets keep away from personal stuff.

somebody asked a question, the answer is important to them, probably important to their education, i believe your answer is incorrect and if nobody challenged you, the OP would just believe you and could have false knowledge.

indeed, i could accuse you of arrogance for believing that nobody should argue against you if they have a different idea of what is correct.

if you dont want people challenging your statements then dont put them in a public forum. a forum is a place for debate.

posted on December 9th, 2010, 9:19 pm

i think you need to review your evidence, it doesnt prove your point. it lends more support to mine.

hey, this isnt a personal argument. i am arguing from fact only. so lets keep away from personal stuff.

somebody asked a question, the answer is important to them, probably important to their education, i believe your answer is incorrect and if nobody challenged you, the OP would just believe you and could have false knowledge.

indeed, i could accuse you of arrogance for believing that nobody should argue against you if they have a different idea of what is correct.

if you dont want people challenging your statements then dont put them in a public forum. a forum is a place for debate.

Again i never said you were wrong i said i miss-understood what was asked but my anwser was still related to the question and i never said noone should question what i said, this is just stuff your imagining in your head, but im not going to be dragged into a stupid online arguement because of your arrogance and or stupidity.