Tomasz Kojm wrote: > On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:54:18 -0500 > Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Any ideas on how to avoid this in the future? I'm running with >> ScanArchive and ScanMail (because I want the binhex feature on). > > The problem may be connected with already discussed and fixed > /dev/urandom issue. Please update to the latest CVS version.
OK. After hashing through a couple of different tests with Nigel Horne on my FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE laptop, my FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE test and production servers, one of Nigel's FreeBSD 5.2 machines, and one of Nigel's linux machines of unknown type I finally gave the CVS version a try. I found that the CVS version works quite well and alleviates the problem of new clamdscan connections being rejected under high load. The only thing I still don't understand is why clamscan is so much faster than clamdscan, and why clamscan only uses 25M of process memory while clamdscan uses over 298M of process memory during the scan: ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 20702 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 0 Data scanned: 57.21 MB I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes Time: 11.989 sec (0 m 11 s) [13:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~]% clamdscan test-message.txt /usr/home/jesse/test-message.txt: OK ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Infected files: 0 Time: 89.334 sec (1 m 29 s) [13:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~]% -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
