Clifton Royston wrote the following on 10/10/2007 5:20 PM -0800: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:07:52PM -0400, Adam65535 wrote: > >> On 10/10/07, Rob MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I've never yet seen clamd take anything close to that on emails. I >>> have to add SpamAssassin to the process to get anything close to that >>> kind of delay. >>> >>> As a quick test, I ran clamdscan against sample-nonspam.txt (that came >>> with SpamAssassin some time back) and it took 0.015s. >>> >>> Now, clamscan, that took 2.6s for the same scan (f-prot took 0.3s, >>> bitdefender a mind blowing 6.3). >>> >>> >> Well the timings I did locally on that simple email confirm what everyone >> else has been stating. Uvscan is slower than clamd. Either I have been >> transposing these two timing all this time or one of the clamav/clamd >> updates improved things. Going by everyone comments it sure seems like I >> have been transposing these numbers :/. >> > > It might be something of both; there was also one of the clamav updates > in the past year which speeded daemon mode up tremendously, IME. > > -- Clifton > > I thought the update had to do with how long it took clamd to load its signature file upon startup. I haven't seen any changes in clamd scan times once the signature files are initially loaded.
Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list AMaViS-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
