Scheduler Usage

Is it the case that having an AFT server on one of the endpoints of a file transfer is more efficient than having the server on the CTM Server.
For example:
Server A is the source
Server B is the Destination
Server C is the CTM server
As I understand AFT, you have much more overhead with the AFT server being on Server C because the data must be sent from A to C and then from C to B. It seems to me that having the AFT server installed on Server A (or B) would be more efficient and that AFT would only move the data once rather than twice. Is this the case, or is there something more complex which I am missing here?

AFT is a command module (CM) that is installed on the Control-M agent, not server. The AFT CM does not have it's own ftp\sftp server but uses the host transfer protocol that it is installed on and it's being treated by the agent as just another job. I'm transferring thousands of files via already busy agents and except for the increase in network utilization there is not much more load on the agents - it's just another job...

From my experience but I may be wrong, the AFT is just a client like CuteFTP or WS_FTP Pro, or FileZilla, etc. When you set up a connection account you need one of the sites to be an FTP server or both. You can't setup a local to local. We currently have so many FTP transfers that we have two virtual servers with AFT installed to spread out the traffic. Hope this helps.