>Disk drive technology is outpacing network technology,
>software, server technology, and tape technology.

Sorry, but that's not true at all.  As industry analysts will tell you,
advances in disk throughput have grown frustratingly slowly over time, *far*
slower than network, software, and computer hardware technology.  Get ahold of
comparative graphs, and the relative rate of progress will be painfully clear.
Trying to quickly get at information on a spinning platter harks back to
phonograph technology, and is the dominant limiting factor in today's data
processing.  Tape is even worse.  So whether you back up to your deskside or
to a central ADSM server, you're still waiting for media to move, and it takes
quite a while in both cases.  In contrast, network technology has been
advancing like a rocket.

I think the evolution of ADSM calls for relatively inexpensive, distributed
servers.  We're still at the point where ADSM's design is influenced by
economy of scale, thus centralizing storage (cost of robotics and the like).
That's inconvenient for many applications, which don't warrant large,
centralized backup - like (as you say) just backing up your personal data, as
needed, locally, without unjustifiable network expenditures.

But remember that ADSM is so attractive because it does afford centralized
controls, disciplines, and accountability.  Data is the lifeblood of
corporations, and the loose practices and diverse local choices which have
resulted in the loss of so much vital data have caused businesses to gravitate
toward a solution like ADSM, where they know what's going on with their data,
and that they really do have backup.  A centralized solution like ADSM may be
frustrating at times, but there are compelling reasons for it.

    Richard Sims, Boston University OIT