On Saturday 27 March 2010 03:40:12 Voytek Eymont wrote: > I use ClamAV as well as BDC console edition 7.1, > > looking with 'top' whenever bdc scans, it seems to pull high CPU > > is there simple simple way to compare 'effectiveness' of Clam versus BDC ? > > what other av scanners do others use ?
If you're using the "free" bdc, it's a plain command line scanner, not daemonized, so it will have to start the process afresh on every new mail. Clamd runs daemonized, so it's already resident when each mail is processed, reducing startup time (and CPU usage in the process) For many people, clam is acceptable for detection, but in independent tests it tends to be less effective than the commercial scanners. I use F-Secure's scanner in combination with clam and it gives more than acceptable results for me on my small mail server (100K messages per day) Andy ObDisclaimer#1: I work for F-Secure, so my opinion might be biased. I don't believe it is though :) ObDisclaimer#2: What's written here is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer. You know the drill... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ 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/
