I have to agree with Cycle Rider, Black Ice is NOT very CPU intensive. I think that perhaps the info from the other poster might have been skewed by having the GUI for BlackICE open during tests. The GUI can be CPU intensive as it is updating itself. But the service itself never seems to get above 1%, even during heavy times of auto blocking. By the way, the 1% reading was on a PIII 733
With the GUI open, I've seen the GUI process as high as 17%. This is not unreasonable given all that is accessible and being updated in that GUI, and it would not need to be left open unless you are making edits, or checking logs, etc. On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 03:26:02 -0600, Len Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >No you're not clueless and you've actually hit the nail on the head. It > >takes MUCH less processing overhead for Imail to give a 550 reply than it > >does to run Black Ice. > > where do you see this? just feel it? or in TaskMgr or some kind of > execution profiler? > > >Black Ice is very slow and processor intensive compared to Imail. > > wow, that's great info. can you provide more repeatable, quantifiable info? > > There are people using PktFilter with Imail. Does anybody have an info > about PktFilter's efficiency? > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
