FYI, I did some heavy talking with a contact at Kaspersky about 1 1/2 ago regarding using their product to integrate into a product I was trying to develop, but did not get off the ground.
They are very helpful and courteous. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 4:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.Virus] Faster second scanner needed > > As I continue to research opportunities for increasing efficiency in > order to extend the life of my current environment, I have identified > AVG Anti-Virus as one of the biggest processor hogs, and holder of the > most opportunity. F-Prot is 4 times faster, and maybe more efficient > than that when it comes to processor utilization. Outside of > efficiency, AVG has proven to be a good second scanner, and this should > only be an issue if you are approaching the capacity of your > environment. With AVG commented out and only F-Prot running, the peaks > are much shorter and much lower, but I can ride 100% for over 5 seconds > several times a minute during rush hours with both scanners enabled. > > Everything that I've read about Kaspersky seems to indicate that they > are the fastest at detecting new viruses, but their "File Server" > edition costs $370 retail, and 70% of that yearly. I suppose that I > might be able to find this much cheaper through a wholesaleing source. > > My main concern though is efficiency, and I would take an average > scanner if it was the most efficient over the best scanner if it was > average in terms of efficiency. If anyone has some first hand knowledge > concerning efficiency of any of the scanners, please let me know. I > believe this can be tracked by doing the following if you use F-Prot as > one of two or more scanners: > > 1) Change to LOGLEVEL DEBUG in your Virus.config > 2) Wait for three viruses to be blocked (not 1K ECAIR tests, the > real deal). > 3) Change your LOGLEVEL back to it's normal setting. > 4) Compare the times logged for each scanner (you can post them here > or E-mail them to me and I would be happy to decipher) > > I would imagine that with most 32 bit scanners, the difference in time > will be directly related to the processing power required to run the > scanner, or at least that holds true for the comparison between F-Prot > and AVG on my system. Note that the times between systems shouldn't be > compared, only the relative multiple of the second scanner to F-Prot > should be compared, that way you establish F-Prot's time as being the > control. > > I'm primarily interested in Kaspersky, ClamAV and McAfee, in that order, > though I'm welcome to suggestions for other products that don't prohibit > command line scanning of E-mail in their licenses. > > Anecodotal evidence is also appreciated :) > > Thanks, > > Matt > > -- > ===================================================== > MailPure custom filters for Declude JunkMail Pro. > http://www.mailpure.com/software/ > ===================================================== > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.Virus mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.Virus". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
