On 9/13/11 9:36 AM, "Bryan Burke" <bbu...@eecs.utk.edu> wrote:
>> Noone has suggested "maximum". The issue is that the mirrors are so >> overloaded that it's often taking freshclam an excessive amount of >> time to do its thing, because of the time-outs / connection >> failures. No big deal if it's the update run in the background. But >> if it's on-demand update preceding a user-driven scan, it's making >> the user sit there, twiddling its thumbs, for up to a minute or two. > > Are we really having this protracted discussion, because we don't want someone > to have to sit for "up to a minute or two"? > That was the original intent, but we seem to have hit a couple of other nerves. > This problem seems overstated. I mean, are we talking about on-demand scans > perhaps a dozen or more times per day, every day? i.e. is this adding up to > hours of lost time every week? If so, is it really such a problem to have a > database that is *at most* 2 hours out-of-date (the default)? Do you need to > do an update before *every* on-demand scan? > I don't know the frequency, but it was enough of a problem for him to complain...three times before I brought it up here. > And why can't that be solved (if it is, in fact, an issue) by increasing the > check frequency to, say, every hour? > That's not a user option with ClamXav, although I realize it could be done by hacking the LaunchAgent (formerly cron) event. I will probably recommend to Mark that he include multiple updates as a user preference one of these days, but there are a couple of other features I'd like to see first. >... > Is there really anything more to discuss, except perhaps some more details > of the local directory answer? > As I mentioned earlier today, I believe the issue with this particular mirror is bigger than what has been stated. I understand the need to limit access but why do we have a mirror: - Supporting users half way around the world - Which always seems to be the first one checked - And has never successfully connected for over two weeks If it was just one of these I could accept it, but there has to be something else going on with it. My guess is that if the network was working as designed the user would never had lodged his initial complaint. -Al- -- Al Varnell Mountain View, CA _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
