On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, 02:05 GMT+01 Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote: > The README file says that --enable-experimental adds performance, but > I found it only slows things down further, what sort of speedup is > expected with the experimental code?
The --enable-experimental switch adds url-based phishing detection to clamscan per default. Because that requires additional code to be executed, it decreases performance a bit. To go back to similar speed as in the default build (without experimental code enabled), you have to disable url-based phishing detection (then you will miss a great feature, however): [EMAIL PROTECTED] roal]$ echo test | clamscan-devel-20070218 - stdin: OK ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 92761 Engine version: devel-20070218 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 0 Data scanned: 0.00 MB Time: 2.890 sec (0 m 2 s) [EMAIL PROTECTED] roal]$ echo test | clamscan-devel-20070218 --no-phishing-scan-urls - stdin: OK ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 92761 Engine version: devel-20070218 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 0 Data scanned: 0.00 MB Time: 2.438 sec (0 m 2 s) While performance decreased from 0.8x to 0.9 on scanning mails, it increased significantly on scanning binaries. A full scan of a Linux system with ~ 120000 files of ~ 20 GB speeded up from almost 7 hours (0.88.7) to ~ 4 hours, so 0.9 is really almost twice as fast as 0.8 on full system scans. Nice done! > Note: I haven't seen any crashes, not for the regular and neither for > the experimental build. You will see crashes and/or other instabilities if you continue to use 0.90 with enabled experimental code on incoming emails. Don't do this! Use the latest SVN build instead, all the major bugs of 0.90 have already been fixed there (I can confirm it with the SVN revision 2812). bye, rob. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
