Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I tried to install nfs using sudo apt-get install nfs-server (for the purpose of streaming audio files to a Mac running OS 10.6) and discovered that I have two packages to choose between.

Package nfs-server is a virtual package provided by:
  nfs-kernel-server 1:1.2.0-4ubuntu4.1
  unfs3 0.9.22+dfsg-2
You should explicitly select one to install.

Is there any particular reason to choose unfs3 over nfs-kernel server? Is it faster or slower? More or less stable? Does it matter at all?

Apart from the fact that I will be streaming some fairly large files (flac), I will be doing nothing out of the ordinary. It's on a closed network so there are no security concerns.

share|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

UNFS3 is a user-space implementation of the NFSv3 server specification. It provides a daemon for the MOUNT and NFS protocols, which are used by NFS clients for accessing files on the server

UNFS3 being user space based, and not widely deployed, I wouldn't really trust it. nfs-kernel-server is linux's standard nfs server

share|improve this answer
Not widely deployed and, I take it, therefore not as thoroughly tested. nfs-kernel-server it is then. – senderle Jul 16 '11 at 17:06

nfs-kernel-server is my choice and the recommended default server. It supports both NFSv3 and v4 and always works well for me. I believe unfs3 only supports v3.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.