Talk:Access time

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Latency_(engineering)#Mechanical_latency|Mechanical latency]] The anchor (#Mechanical_latency) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Seek time[edit]

It'd be nice if someone could put information on what the different seek times mean with regards to hard drives
I've just purchased a new HD, and reading the drive's specs, there are

Read Seek Time 8.9 ms
Write Seek Time 10.9 ms (average)
Track-To-Track Seek Time 2.0 ms (average)
Full Stroke Seek 21.0 ms (average)

Thats for a 7200RPM WD RE drive. Descriptions on those seek times would be fantastic. Bazarnz 22:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So access time=rotational delay + seek time? Andries (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

While checking over articles in the WP:ASE project, I ran across two very short articles that were not much more than your mommmms dictionary definitions. They were Thread switching latency and Process switching latency. I propose that those two articles be merged into this article, Access time. Any thoughts? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is more appropriate to merge/transfer the seek time and rotational latency here, these single-section limitrofic articles. The present separation impedes the holistic grasp rathar then improves the perception. --Javalenok (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disage with merging thread or process switching latency. This article is about mechanical hard disks, not processors. I would prefer to see this article merged with a hard disk drive article. -Brian, Dec 1 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.39.34 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Merge the disk-related section to Disk drive performance characteristics, simply because there it would contribute to an interesting article whereas here it can say nothing beyond a simple, unhelpful definition. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But

Disagree to merge Thread switching latency and Process switching latency here as it would provide no benefit to readers. If someone is interested in an article explaining "access time", such topics are nothing more than a See-also. For sure, the two stubs should not stay as they are, as I see no potential for them to grow beyond simple WP:dictionary definition. Should probably be merged into Context switch. Surely not into Access time, and not into Latency (engineering). --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disk drive performance characteristics merger proposal[edit]

Just to clarify, the discussion on the proposal to merge part of this article to the Disk drive performance characteristics article can be found here. The feedback from Kubanczyk has already been noted on that page. § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Access time has meanings well beyond HDD art. Tom94022 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generic[edit]

What's left is valid for Solid-State and, even if that's taken care of, for generic. Pi314m (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]