> If you are not doing real benchmarking those numbers are meaningless. So
> it was
> 60% but under what real load (messages per second)? Is clamd doing the
> same
> work or perhaps the 60% was with some really nasty zip inside zip virus?
>
> If you only look occasionally at load (and BTW using top increases the
> load, you
> should be using prstat) you cannot reach any conclusion.
Respectfully (you sound like you know a hell of a lot more than I do about
these things), the OP presumably (hopefully?) does more than look once at top
and send out emergency emails to this list. I personally watch system load
(just from "w" command as well as top) several times a day as well as watch
my overall mail queue sizes. And I think I can be pretty sure that the CPU
usage spikes from clam are not flukes -- while "top" may not be as useful as
prstat (which I am not familiar with but will research, thank you (anyone
have a favorite link for prstat?)), it *is* still surely of some use,
especially when watched regularly and in combination with seeing higher
average queue backups than when using clam .80
> > Anyone have any suggestions with .80 or .84 CPU load issue.
>
> Tune up clamd. That means adjusting the MaxConnectionQueueLength,
> MaxThreads,
> ArchiveMaxFileSize, ArchiveLimitMemoryUsage options on clamd.conf taking
> into
> consideration that RAM is limited.
I hear that. Our situation is such that we see no swapping, but still lots
of CPU consumption. But I am willing to be educated on better clam settings,
since we haven't tweaked extensively in that regard.... but still, .80 with
the same config was pretty quiet on our system.
Thanks a lot!
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
_______________________________________________
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
