Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
>> I've rebuilt it with my standard script so it should behave again. Sorry for
>> that distraction. I'll update the output of the time tests shortly.
>>
>> dp
>
> I see in my previous post I gave myself an extra ghz in cpu speed - it's a
> 2gig
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:26:57PM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>
> But if I launch configure with --disable-gcc-vcheck, configure doesn't
> execute this check, all configure continues. So, it seems that configure
> considers this as a gcc bug and not a generic bug which can be found
On 2009-03-06 16:26, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:04:04PM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> checking for gcc bug PR26763-2... ok, bug not present
>>>
>>
>>> checking for valid c
Henrik K wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:04:04PM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>> **
>> checking for gcc bug PR26763-2... ok, bug not present
>
>
>> checking for valid code generation of CLI_ISCONTAINED... configure:
>> error: your compiler has a bug that
On 2009-03-06 16:04, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>
>> What gcc version did you use? Did you set -mcpu flag?
>>
>
> SunStudio 12
>
> 160 - clamav/clamav-0.95rc1 > cc -V
> cc: Sun C 5.9 SunOS_sparc 2007/05/03
>
> with standard flags.
>
> I don't have gcc installe
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 03:04:04PM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>
> **
> checking for gcc bug PR26763-2... ok, bug not present
> checking for valid code generation of CLI_ISCONTAINED... configure:
> error: your compiler has a bug that causes clamav bug no. 6
Török Edwin wrote:
>
> What gcc version did you use? Did you set -mcpu flag?
SunStudio 12
160 - clamav/clamav-0.95rc1 > cc -V
cc: Sun C 5.9 SunOS_sparc 2007/05/03
with standard flags.
I don't have gcc installed at this computer. Well, it's there but I
don't use it.
>
> Looks like the Linux
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 22:54, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>> Time: 14.949 sec (0 m 14 s)
>>
>> A T2000 with 8 cores looks like this :
>>
>> # psrinfo -v
>> Status of virtual processor 0 as of: 03/04/2009 21:44:58
>> on-line since 01/30/2009 12
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:16:18PM +0100, shuttlebox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
> wrote:
> >> On a Solaris10/sparc box (UltraSPARC-IIi 440Mhz) it takes 18s.
> >
> > Hmmm, a T2000 is "slightly" better than your sparc box (a 10 years old
> > Ultra 5 or Ultra
On 2009-03-05 01:32, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> RedHat Linux, AMD Athlon 2Mhz, signatures are uncompressed and include all
> Sane
> Security signatures and MSRBL signatures. The following is unscientific and
> anecdotal, but repeatable:
>
> [...]
>
> Time: 2.242 sec (0 m 2 s)
>
> [...]
>
> Solaris
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-05 00:09, Bill Landry wrote:
>> Ah, I was looking in the (./configure --help) "Fine tuning of the
>> installation directories:" section. Shouldn't this configure switch
>> also be in this section?
>>
>> And with all previous versions of ClamAV, I've never had to use
On 2009-03-05 11:40, Steve Basford wrote:
>> On 2009-03-05 00:09, Bill Landry wrote:
>>
>
>
>> clamscan only uses the hardcoded database directory by default, it
>> doesn't look at your clamd.conf settings.
>>
>
> Hi Edwin,
>
> Just a quick question.. if you use this command it loads *
> On 2009-03-05 00:09, Bill Landry wrote:
> clamscan only uses the hardcoded database directory by default, it
> doesn't look at your clamd.conf settings.
Hi Edwin,
Just a quick question.. if you use this command it loads *just* the clamav
databases fine...
clamscan c:\tmp\test.eml --database=d
On 2009-03-05 00:09, Bill Landry wrote:
> Ah, I was looking in the (./configure --help) "Fine tuning of the
> installation directories:" section. Shouldn't this configure switch
> also be in this section?
>
> And with all previous versions of ClamAV, I've never had to use this
> configure switch -
Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
> I've rebuilt it with my standard script so it should behave again. Sorry for
> that distraction. I'll update the output of the time tests shortly.
>
> dp
I see in my previous post I gave myself an extra ghz in cpu speed - it's a
2gig,
not 3.
RedHat Linux, AMD Athl
Török Edwin wrote:
>
> Another thing to check is if mempool is enabled or not. It makes a 20%
> speed difference here.
> Try ./configure --disable-mempool to see if it is slower or not.
Strange ...
No changes 8-(
with --disable-mempool (I said DISABLE) :
# /usr/bin/time /opt/clamav/bin/clamsc
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz
wrote:
>> On a Solaris10/sparc box (UltraSPARC-IIi 440Mhz) it takes 18s.
>
> Hmmm, a T2000 is "slightly" better than your sparc box (a 10 years old
> Ultra 5 or Ultra 10 ?). But it doesn't seems too faster.
Those T2000's are not that fas
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 23:18, Bill Landry wrote:
>> Török Edwin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Was your clamd heavily loaded at that time?
>>> How long does this take:
>>> $ time clamscan /dev/null
>>>
>> Sorry to break in here, but I wanted to check how long my server would
>> take to load t
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Steve Basford wrote:
>> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>> Sparc Solaris 9, 500Mhz
>>> Known viruses: 563036
>>> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>>>
>>> LibClamAV Warning: *** Please update it as soon as possible.***
>>> Known viruses: 208929
>>> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>>>
>>
On 2009-03-04 22:54, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-04 21:53, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>> Was your clamd heavily loaded at that time?
>>
>
> No. This is a test server. Absolutely no load. It seemed to me tha
On 2009-03-04 23:18, Bill Landry wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>
>> Was your clamd heavily loaded at that time?
>> How long does this take:
>> $ time clamscan /dev/null
>>
>
> Sorry to break in here, but I wanted to check how long my server would
> take to load the signature databases with
Török Edwin wrote:
> Was your clamd heavily loaded at that time?
> How long does this take:
> $ time clamscan /dev/null
Sorry to break in here, but I wanted to check how long my server would
take to load the signature databases with v0.95rc1. However, this is
new to me:
clamscan /dev/null
LibCl
Steve Basford wrote:
>
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Sparc Solaris 9, 500Mhz
>> Known viruses: 563036
>> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>>
>> LibClamAV Warning: *** Please update it as soon as possible.***
>> Known viruses: 208929
>> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>>
> Hi Dennis, 208929 vs 563036 sig
Steve Basford wrote:
>
> Dennis Peterson wrote:
>> Sparc Solaris 9, 500Mhz
>> Known viruses: 563036
>> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>>
>> LibClamAV Warning: *** Please update it as soon as possible.***
>> Known viruses: 208929
>> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>>
> Hi Dennis, 208929 vs 563036 sig
Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Sparc Solaris 9, 500Mhz
> Known viruses: 563036
> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>
> LibClamAV Warning: *** Please update it as soon as possible.***
> Known viruses: 208929
> Engine version: 0.95rc1
>
Hi Dennis, 208929 vs 563036 sigs? would that be the speed differ
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 21:53, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>>
>
> Was your clamd heavily loaded at that time?
No. This is a test server. Absolutely no load. It seemed to me that it
was the message which triggered the database update.
top load is something like this :
load
Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2009-03-04 21:53, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
>> Török Edwin wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-04 19:44, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>>
>>
>
>
Is there not a "nice" way to do this?
>>> 0.95rc1 does reload "nicer", in the sense that
On 2009-03-04 21:53, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
> Török Edwin wrote:
>
>> On 2009-03-04 19:44, Dennis Peterson wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Is there not a "nice" way to do this?
>>>
>> 0.95rc1 does reload "nicer", in the sense that it accepts new
>> connection
28 matches
Mail list logo
