I want to do Time Machine backups to an ubuntu server. It is a hosted remote machine, not in my LAN.

So far, I have found two approaches to realize the connection between the computer and the backup server: netatalk or NFS. Question is: which of these approaches would deliver higher transfer speed?

I will communicate with the ubuntu server within a ssh tunnel.

1 Answer 1


NFS is known for higher performance than AFP or SMB; it is also a native protocol for unix based operating systems therefore it should be easier to setup.

  • ANy figures on this - also setting up smb or AFS is as easy now, all 3 are network protocols none, NFS was first written on a Unix but no reason why it is easier to setup
    – mmmmmm
    Commented Mar 10, 2013 at 23:02
  • Please have a look at this: readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=11211
    – Ninetou
    Commented Mar 10, 2013 at 23:10
  • Put the info in the answer then - not just a link especially not in comments and that does not support your answer it says -In my opinion, AFP is the clear winner; it's cached much better by an OS X client, with significantly better read performance even if it does have to cross the network.
    – mmmmmm
    Commented Mar 10, 2013 at 23:13
  • ALso how does this affect Time Machine, I don't think disk access is the only possible speed difference here
    – mmmmmm
    Commented Mar 10, 2013 at 23:14
  • I am now fighting with apple talk, see: apple.stackexchange.com/questions/84966/…, I wonder whether NFS is not a better solution. There is a bug in NFS client of MacOS according to this discussion: supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2013-February/… . Maybe, it is not so bad.
    – Skarab
    Commented Mar 10, 2013 at 23:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .