On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:26:05 -0500 Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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: clamdscan by default (see clamav.conf !) scans all directories recursively. -- oo ..... Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (\/)\......... http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..........._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Fri Mar 26 03:48:58 CET 2004
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
