On 13.09.19 14:42, Micah Snyder (micasnyd) via clamav-users wrote:
One thing we could do is have clamd "start" before loading the database.
That is to say that it would immediately begin listening on the unix/tcp
socket for requests and fork into the background so as not to block the
boot process. All scan requests would then be blocked while the database
loads. I imagine this would solve most of the frustration around boot-up
load time.
Does this have any appeal?
on debian we've had parallel startup for some time, systems using systemd
should have that one too (but maybe it runs on foreground there).
I'd personally expect clamd to be fully working after it forks at startup.
other SW may expect that too.
Maybe with other startup parameter?
On 9/12/19, 11:31 PM, "clamav-users on behalf of J.R. via clamav-users"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
This patch will be a very welcome addition! Oddly enough today my
hosting company had an emergency and I needed to shutdown my server so
it could be physically moved mid-day.
The painfully slow load time of ClamAV was excruciating apparent while
I was watching the console slowly go through the boot process.
While a second thread to *reload* the database in the background is
going to be a nice feature, I would assume it wouldn't help any on
initial startup. While tweaking things with this 2nd thread, maybe
there could be a start-up option / flag to only load like the
daily.cld (or official sigs only) to minimize blocking on boot-up, but
still allow a decent level of protection. Then a full DB could be
loading up in its separate thread and swapped when ready?
I honestly have no idea how the signatures load, but would a full
multi-threaded model even theoretically work? Or would that not allow
correct parsing / loading of the signatures? It just seems with PCs
and servers having so many cores, and the number of viruses
ever-increasing...
Alternatively, would there be a way to do a "diff" on the loaded
signatures in memory to add / remove only the ones that have changed
(when feasible over a full reload)? Seems like an awful lot of
unnecessary re-parsing is being done when only a small handful of
signatures are added at any given time.
Just throwing some ideas out there... Always thankful for all the hard
work from the development team.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, [email protected] ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory.
_______________________________________________
clamav-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
