mcd wrote: > On 9/8/06, Barry Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > cat filename | xargs clamscan > > This is an interesting approach, but let me explain a little more. I > will be running md5sums for every file on a system. I will then > compare that list of md5sums against a list of md5sums that are know > to be virus free. The files that do not have valid md5sums in the > database will then need to be scanned. In a lot of situations this > list of files will be in the thousands. At this point would I be > better off calling clamscan to scan the entire disk, or call clamscan > 10,000+ times with unknown files? I hope I am making this clear. > Thanks for all of your help.
Calling clamscan 10,000 times is a very bad idea. Considering that it takes clamscan 1.4 seconds to scan a single small file on my system... Instead, you should use the clamd daemon and then call clamdscan 10,000 times. It only takes clamdscan 0.005 seconds to scan that same single file. You are probably better off scanning the list of files unless that list represents 90% or more of your drive. There is very little overhead to calling clamdscan. -- Bowie _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
