>"This will require shit loads of storage"

>-Re-read the article - it essentially saves and replicates a single instance of

>each block and uses MUCH less capacity than tape which typically does full

>and incremental backups

It depends on the rate at which blocks are overwritten versus the incremental backup period.

If you had a disc with a high rate of changes to individual blocks in a relatively small file, a system that stores every block change will store more data than a system that stores the whole file at the end of the day.

If it's truly a single instance of each block, then it's not much different to mirroring and you wouldn't be able to wind back. If it's an instance of each overwritten block, then you can wind back a file to any point, however it will use shit loads of storage when applied to active files.

Actually re-reading the article, it claims that you can restore a file to any point, therefore the route to all points must be stored. When the points change often there is a lot to be stored.