On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote: > Question: Why not run clamdscan instead of clamd under mimedefang?
Because running clamdscan involves a fork/exec, whereas talking directly to clamd over its socket does not. On a mildly busy mail server, you won't notice the difference. On a very busy one, you will. > 1) clamdscan appears to always be at least 2 orders of magnitude > faster than clamscan. That's probably true, because it doesn't have to read the virus signatures. > 2) mimedefang running clamdscan does not appear to be significantly > faster than mimedefang using clamd via clamd's socket (within the > limits of the experiments I could run). Try it on a very heavily-loaded server. :-) > 3) the setup to run clamdscan under mimedefang is trivial (change > references to clamscan to be clamdscan) compared to the setup to run > clamd (running under a different user, getting freshclam to notify it > of database updates, etc.) That's true; maybe it's worth doing? > Which brings up another question: Why even offer clamscan as a > mimedefang option -- why not just always use clamdscan? Well, on the opposite side of the ring from the performance freaks are the stability nuts, for whom *not* having yet another long-running daemon process (especially one that gets interrupted every now and then by freshclam) is attractive. I like giving people choices. :-) Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
