back to article Seagate scoops a revenue boost off back of its 8TB drives

Seagate has beaten its own preliminary fiscal 2016 fourth quarter estimate of $2.65bn revenues with a $2.7bn quarter. Still, this was 6.9 per cent less than a year ago, although 3.8 per cent up on the third quarter. Profits were $70m, 49 per cent less than a year ago but a whole, thumping lot better than last quarter's $21m …

  1. Crazy Operations Guy Silver badge

    What would certainly help would be to start offering hard disks with a physical WORM setting and better hot-swap capability to compete properly in the D2D backup space. I'd throw so much money at Seagate if they could build a hard-disk based replacement for my aging tape robot-library system. Building out a box for the disks to be completely tray-less would be trivial (I have a couple such bays on my desktop), especially if they added some kind of twist-lock notch to the physical casing to aid a robotic arm to grab it (The corners of the drive are already hollow most of the time anyway).

    Maybe add in some kind of RAID-like redundancy into a backup set and you'll get something even better than tape. I can't count the number of times I've had a backup set ruined by a tape having failed for one reason or another (Broken gears and dried-out / structurally defective tape being the two biggest issues).

    I figure a proper system would write the backup data across a 12 or 14 disk RAID-6 (or preferably something that provides the same level of redundancy but in a more backup-friendly format) backup set loaded into a tray-less box. Each disk would have a pair of notches on the end so that a robot arm can easily grab and pull the disk. The disks would be equipped with a physical switch or a set of fuses to electrically disconnect the write heads. Perhaps add in some logic so that backup device knows how much data it will back up and can use smaller, or larger, hard disks to avoid waste.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      And instead of putting the read/write heads inside the drive, they could just have the heads inside the robotic library. That would save on costs. Also instead of using platters for the drives, they could use long magnetic strips that could be wound up in a circle. This would increase the storage density.

      I think this is a great idea.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Maybe add in some kind of RAID-like redundancy into a backup set"

      Never heard of RAIT?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "they could use long magnetic strips that could be wound up in a circle."

    I'm going to sit back and wait for the first American reply to that, we just know it will be in earnest..

  3. Chris Mellor 1

    Posted for on reader's behalf

    This comment was sent privately to me, to spare my blushes maybe, but I figured it deserved a public posting - so I could get a public pasting :-)

    "2.7e9 is greater than 2.65e9?

    I would like to see another significant figure in that revenue report of $2.7 billion if it is being claimed that it exceeds a prediction of 2.65 billion.

    So, a closer look, since I am a little bored and this might be a quick practice problem-

    Seagate's Q4 supplemental report shows disk revenues of 2.455 billion (possibly erroneously reported as $2.455m in the article - [Corrected - thank you!] ) plus Flash/other of 0.199 billion, for a total of 2.654 billion. This matches the details of the Q4 report even though their own press release says 2.7 billion.

    Technically 2.654 can be reported as 2.7, but I think maybe the opening paragraph is a little misleading? Or optimistic?"

    Neat, huh?

  4. Chris Mellor 1

    (In)significant figures

    This comment was posted privately to me, to spare my blushes maybe, but I figured it deserved a public posting anyway:-

    "2.7e9 is greater than 2.65e9?

    I would like to see another significant figure in that revenue report of $2.7 billion if it is being claimed that it exceeds a prediction of 2.65 billion.

    So, a closer look, since I am a little bored and this might be a quick practice problem-

    Seagate's Q4 supplemental report shows disk revenues of 2.455 billion (possibly erroneously reported as $2.455m in the article [ since corrected; thanks.] ) plus Flash/other of $0.199 billion, for a total of $2.654 billion. This matches the details of the Q4 report even though their own press release says $2.7 billion.

    Technically 2.654 can be reported as 2.7, but I think maybe the opening paragraph is a little misleading? Or optimistic?"

    Neat, huh?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020