A simple comparison (very rough, but shows the idea):
$ time clamscan /etc/services /etc/services: OK
----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- [...] Data scanned: 0.01 Mb I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes Time: 0.721 sec (0 m 0 s)
real 0m0.726s user 0m0.680s sys 0m0.040s
$ time clamdscan /etc/services /etc/services: OK
----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Infected files: 0 Time: 0.008 sec (0 m 0 s)
real 0m0.012s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s
Depending on which times one compares, one gets:
0.721/0.008 ~= 90 or:
0.726/0.012 ~= 60.
You can see the difference! ;-)
hmm. while i am seeing a gigantic difference in 'real' scanning of incoming messages, here's what i get from scanning my existing quarantine dir between the two:
with 880 files in the quarantine,
clamdscan: ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Infected files: 33 Time: 37.506 sec (0 m 37 s) 0.02u 0.00s 0:37.51 0.0%
clamscan: ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 29948 Scanned directories: 1 Scanned files: 880 Infected files: 11 Data scanned: 6.48 MB I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes Time: 34.016 sec (0 m 34 s) 17.80u 0.55s 0:34.04 53.9%
which is really weird. clamdscan took 3 seconds *longer*, butit also found three times as many viruses as clamscan (that's weird in itself, since all the messages in the quarantine were put there by clamscan!)
so, i'm confused to say the least, but with my servers now sitting back having a cool drink, rather than swinging a pickaxe and sweating like crazy, i'm not going to question the results. ;^)
Paul Theodoropoulos http://www.anastrophe.com
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
