OSNews

Yeah, it would be nice if it would become the ZFS or the UFS successor for BSD. Maybe a FUSE version would be a good idea to make it more widely used. Of course, this can't substitute a native version.

I wouldn't say that HAMMER would be a good replacement for ZFS (though I haven't done extensive testing of HAMMER like I have of ZFS), but it is a good file system. here are teh baisc goals of HAMMER

Instant or nearly-instant mount. No fsck needed on crash recovery.
• Full history retention with easy access, via the live file-system. That means
being able to CD into snapshots of the file-system and being able to access
previous versions of a file (or directory tree), whether they have been
deleted or not.
• Good performance.
• Queue-less, incremental mirroring.
• Ability to re-optimize the layout in the background, on the live file-system.
• No i-node limitations.
• Extensible media structures to reduce compatibility issues as time
progresses.
• Support for very large file-systems (up to 1 exabyte)
• Data integrity checks, including high-level snapshot tar md5s.
• Not hamstring a clustered implementation, which has its own list of
requirements.
• Not hamstring a remote access implementation.

more info here: http://www.dragonflybsd.org/hammer/hammer.pdf

I will do a comparison between ZFS and HAMMER later in the week.

Edited 2009-02-18 16:36 UTC

two good things about HAMMER:
It's a clearer, simpler design and not as complex, as ZFS.

It doesn't suck up as much memory, as ZFS.

If you compare how long the development of these two file systems took and how many problems the ZFS port of FreeBSD had I would say it's the BSD ZFS.