Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My stock system is a Dell Optiplex 760. Its got a core2 duo 8400 3.0 ghz. I have to do a lot of image processing which reads and writes 20-30 gb files to my hard drives. I requested two 300gb 10k western digital velociraptors. However my IT people have stated:

"The system can only handle a max 150GB on each drive at the speed he is requesting."

Does this make any sense? Under what circumstances could this be true?

share|improve this question
budget, maybe? doesn't strike me as a real excuse. – quack quixote Jan 30 '10 at 0:51
up vote 6 down vote accepted

I think the reason IT said that is because the spec sheet for the OptiPlex 760 [pdf] listed the largest 10K drive at 160GB. I suspect it is because that was the largest 10K drive at available at the time.

I don't know of any reason they/you couldn't put in larger aftermarket drive.

share|improve this answer
I think this is the answer. I was just checking to make sure I wasn't missing something. The computers paid for with grant money anyway. I just want to be as efficient as possible when running $21K software for weeks on end. – kpierce8 Jan 30 '10 at 3:12
oy... if that's really the answer i think kpierce8 needs new IT guys... – quack quixote Jan 30 '10 at 9:04

The speed of hard drive isn't related to it's capacity in any way. Maybe they are just too expensive?

share|improve this answer
Actually there is a link, are areal density goes up, or the number of read/write heads increases, the aggregate bits/sec data rate under the heads will increase leading to faster performance. – Richard Jan 30 '10 at 10:11

Even IF the onboard controller doesn't allow for 10k drives > 160 GB (which i doubt), that could be remedied with a modern addon PCI SATA II controller.

share|improve this answer
i know there's a controller-size-capability boundary somewhere around there but i think it's more like 128GB (or 137GB or something else well under 160...). but you're right, it's unlikely. – quack quixote Jan 30 '10 at 9:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.