I have been using sshfs to work remotely, but it is really slow and annoying, particularly when I use eclipse on it.

Is there any faster way to mount the remote file system locally? My no.1 priority is speed.

Remote machine is Fedora 15, local machine is Ubuntu 10.10. I can also use Windows XP locally if necessary.

11 Answers 11


sshfs is using the SSH file transfer protocol, which means encryption.

If you just mount via NFS, it's of course faster, because not encrypted.

are you trying to mount volumes on the same network? then use NFS.

| improve this answer | |
  • 40
    It's not slow because of the encryption, it's slow because it's FUSE and it keeps checking the file system state. – w00t May 19 '13 at 13:40
  • 3
    @w00t I don't think that it's FUSE slowing it down, and not the encryption. Changing the encryption to arcfour sped it up for me, whereas using scp was just as slow as sshfs. – Sparhawk Sep 28 '13 at 4:57
  • 24
    @Sparhawk there's a difference between throughput and latency. FUSE gives you pretty high latency because it has to check the filesystem state a lot using some pretty inefficient means. arcfour gives you good throughput because the encryption is simpler. In this case latency is most important because that's what causes the editor to be slow at listing and loading files. – w00t Sep 29 '13 at 11:16
  • 3
    @w00t. Ah okay. Good points. – Sparhawk Sep 29 '13 at 12:42
  • I think NFS traffic can be transferred over SSH pipe so that should result in the best performance if you can use NFS on the remote localhost. The problem with sshfs is that's technically running SFTP and fuse just pretends to be a POSIX compatible filesystem over that protocol. The SFTP protocol doesn't support any fancy features and as a result, any protocol over that will end up having pretty poor overall performance. If you replace SFTP with NFS and keep encryption, it will be much faster. – Mikko Rantalainen Sep 18 at 8:06

If you need to improve the speed for sshfs connections, try these options:


command would be:

sshfs remote:/path/to/folder local -oauto_cache,reconnect,defer_permissions
| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Thanks, worked for me! Had to remove defer_permissions though (unknown option). – Mathieu Rodic Mar 10 '15 at 11:35
  • 5
    Won't nolocalcaches decrease performance by forcing lookups every operation? Does this contradict auto_cache? – earthmeLon Jun 15 '15 at 18:13
  • 1
    The way I read the docs, nolocalcaches only disables the kernel side of things, sshfs still has its own cache. I could imagine that the kernel level checks are tuned for "real" file systems and as such more extensive. On the sshfs side "cache_timeout" looks promising, too. Here's a list: saltycrane.com/blog/2010/04/notes-sshfs-ubuntu ... lots of good stuff. :-) – Someone Oct 29 '15 at 17:21
  • 2
    nolocalcaches and defer_permissions don't seem valid (anymore?) on Debian Jessie. – Someone Oct 29 '15 at 17:31
  • 4
    Why no_readahead? – studgeek Aug 9 '16 at 0:40

Besides already proposed solutions of using Samba/NFS, which are perfectly valid, you could also achieve some speed boost sticking with sshfs by using quicker encryption (authentication would be as safe as usual, but transfered data itself would be easier to decrypt) by supplying -o Ciphers=arcfour option to sshfs. It is especially useful if your machine has weak CPU.

| improve this answer | |
  • -oCipher=arcfour made no difference in my tests with a 141 MB file created from random data. – Sparhawk Sep 28 '13 at 4:39
  • 6
    That's because there were multiple typos in the command. I've edited it. I noticed a 15% speedup from my raspberry pi server. (+1) – Sparhawk Sep 28 '13 at 4:56
  • 4
    The chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com cipher is also an option worth considering now arcfour is obsolete. Chacha20 is faster on ARM processors than AES but far worse on x86 processors with AES instructions (which all modern desktop CPUs have as standard these days). klingt.net/blog/ssh-cipher-performance-comparision You can list supported ciphers with "ssh -Q cipher" – TimSC Nov 20 '17 at 20:48

I do not have any alternatives to recommend, but I can provide suggestions for how to speed up sshfs:

sshfs -o cache_timeout=115200 -o attr_timeout=115200 ...

This should avoid some of the round trip requests when you are trying to read content or permissions for files that you already retrieved earlier in your session.

sshfs simulates deletes and changes locally, so new changes made on the local machine should appear immediately, despite the large timeouts, as cached data is automatically dropped.

But these options are not recommended if the remote files might be updated without the local machine knowing, e.g. by a different user, or a remote ssh shell. In that case, lower timeouts would be preferable.

Here are some more options I experimented with, although I am not sure if any of them made a differences:

sshfs_opts="-o auto_cache -o cache_timeout=115200 -o attr_timeout=115200   \
-o entry_timeout=1200 -o max_readahead=90000 -o large_read -o big_writes   \
-o no_remote_lock"

You should also check out the options recommended by Meetai in his answer.


The biggest problem in my workflow is when I try to read many folders, for example in a deep tree, because sshfs performs a round trip request for each folder separately. This may also be the bottleneck that you experience with Eclipse.

Making requests for multiple folders in parallel could help with this, but most apps don't do that: they were designed for low-latency filesystems with read-ahead caching, so they wait for one file stat to complete before moving on to the next.


But something sshfs could do would be to look ahead at the remote file system, collect folder stats before I request them, and send them to me when the connection is not immediately occupied. This would use more bandwidth (from lookahead data that is never used) but could improve speed.

We can force sshfs to do some read-ahead caching, by running this before you get started on your task, or even in the background when your task is already underway:

find project/folder/on/mounted/fs > /dev/null &

That should pre-cache all the directory entries, reducing some of the later overhead from round trips. (Of course, you need to use the large timeouts like those I provided earlier, or this cached data will be cleared before your app accesses it.)

But that find will take a long time. Like other apps, it waits for the results from one folder before requesting the next one.

It might be possible to reduce the overall time by asking multiple find processes to look into different folders. I haven't tested to see if this really is more efficient. It depends whether sshfs allows requests in parallel. (I think it does.)

find project/folder/on/mounted/fs/A > /dev/null &
find project/folder/on/mounted/fs/B > /dev/null &
find project/folder/on/mounted/fs/C > /dev/null &

If you also want to pre-cache file contents, you could try this:

tar c project/folder/on/mounted/fs > /dev/null &

Obviously this will take much longer, will transfer a lot of data, and requires you to have a huge cache size. But when it's done, accessing the files should feel nice and fast.

| improve this answer | |
  • If you want to read file contents to get it into cache the wc -l is pretty good. It just counts occurrences of 0x10 in the file so it simply reads the file once without outputting the contents. – Mikko Rantalainen Mar 26 at 15:04

After searching and trial. I just found add -o Compression=no speed it a lot. The delay may be caused by the compression and uncompression process. Besides, use 'Ciphers=aes128-ctr' seems faster than others while some post has done some experiments on this. Then, my command is somehow like this:

sshfs -o allow_other,transform_symlinks,follow_symlinks,IdentityFile=/Users/maple/.ssh/id_rsa -o auto_cache,reconnect,defer_permissions -o Ciphers=aes128-ctr -o Compression=no maple@ ~/mntpoint

| improve this answer | |

SSHFS is really slow because it transfers the file contents even if it does not have to (when doing cp). I reported this upstream and to Debian, but no response :/

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    It is efficient with mv. Unfortunately when you run cp locally, FUSE only sees requests to open files for reading and writing. It does not know that you are making a copy of a file. To FUSE it looks no different from a general file write. So I fear this cannot be fixed unless the local cp is made more FUSE-aware/FUSE-friendly. (Or FUSE might be able to send block hashes instead of entire blocks when it suspects a cp, like rsync does, but that would be complex and might slow other operations down.) – joeytwiddle Sep 8 '16 at 5:00

I found turning off my zsh theme that was checking git file status helped enourmously - just entering the directory was taking 10+ minutes. Likewise turning off git status checkers in Vim.

| improve this answer | |
  • Wow, this is a really good tip! – Dmitri Pisarev Aug 7 '19 at 5:16

NFS should be faster. How remote is the filesystem? If it's over the WAN, you might be better off just syncing the files back and forth, as opposed to direct remote access.

| improve this answer | |

Either NFS or Samba if you have large files. Using NFS with something like 720p Movies and crap is really a PITA. Samba will do a better job, tho i dislike Samba for a number of other reasons and i wouldn't usually recommend it.

For small files, NFS should be fine.

| improve this answer | |

I use plain SFTP. I did it primarily to cut out unneeded authentication but I am sure that dropping the layer of encryption helps, too. (Yes, I need to benchmark it.)

I describe a trivial usage here: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-use-SFTP-without-the-overhead-of-SSH-I-want-a-fast-and-flexible-file-server-but-I-dont-need-encryption-or-authentication

| improve this answer | |

Login as root.

Access your top level directory, by using "cd /".

Then ensure that you have a mount folder created or create one using "mkdir folder_name".

After that, simply use "mount x.x.x.x:/remote_mount_directory /local_mount_directory.

if everything worked on your end, before this you should have a successful mount. You might want to check and make sure the destination directory is shared by using the "exportfs" command to gurantee they are able to be found.

Hope this helps. This is not from a lvie environment, it has been tested on a LAN using VMware and Fedora 16.

| improve this answer | |
  • 5
    This does not answer the question… – Léo Lam May 1 '15 at 15:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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