Joshua Megerman wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 08:13:29 pm Quey wrote:
If you goto there is a link to it.
I heard they corrected the problem you mention in current, but clam is
still way to slow compared to other scanners so I don't use it anymore.

Are you using clamscan or clamd/clamdscan? If the former, that's why it's so slow - see if you can switch. Also, what interface to your AV software are

Have tried various methods, its still in the order of 20 times slower than f-prot which we trying to avoid because of the extortionate license costs.

you using? Something like qmail-scanner that's a perl script is much slower

good god no :) we dumped qmail-scanner years ago, we use MailScanner far more efficient use of resources

One other hint - something I do for all my servers (I use simscan not, but I've also used it with qscanq in the past) is put the scanning directory onto a ramdisk (I use tempfs these days, but a true ramdisk would be even better
Yep already done that, we needed to for vast imcrease in speed of handling spamassassin checks. There was even a recent thread on clamav list about the speed of it compared to the likes of f-prot and others.

if you can dedicate the memory to it). It prevents the excess disk I/O overhead that slows the process down, and since it's transient data anyway that shouldn't get through in case of an error, the fact that the scanning space isn't crash-proof is a non-issue...


Reply via email to