>I can understand that they don't want to spend money for a faster network.

That's bad thinking on your users' part.  I really don't understand how
people
running businesses get into this self-defeating mindset - but that's
another
matter.  The thing is that they're spending money on increasingly larger
disk
technology, and obviously spending money to maintain what is now an
obsolete
network technology that no longer fits their business practices.  They need
some consciousness-raising.

>I think that we need a second kind of restore ability with ADSM.

For your part, you *could* implement a much faster restore capability,
depending upon your local hardware and and how fast you can drive to the
user
site.  That is to say that if you could fully prepare and restore a
replacement disk at your ADSM server site, you could then take it to the
user
site and replace theirs.  Certainly, doing the restore entirely within the
ADSM server system, with Shared Memory, would result in a much faster
restoral, per se.  All this is to say that there are various ways to
accomplish the same objective.  But I would get that network upgraded as
the
most reasonable approach.

    Richard Sims, BU