On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 at 14:26:05 -0500, Jesse Guardiani wrote: [...] > The only thing I still don't understand is why clamscan is so > much faster than clamdscan, and why clamscan only uses 25M > of process memory while clamdscan uses over 298M of process > memory during the scan: > > ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- > Scanned files: 1 > Infected files: 0 > Data scanned: 57.21 MB > I/O buffer size: 131072 bytes > Time: 11.989 sec (0 m 11 s) > [13:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~]% clamdscan test-message.txt > /usr/home/jesse/test-message.txt: OK > > ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- > Infected files: 0 > Time: 89.334 sec (1 m 29 s) > [13:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~]% >
1) When scanning a big file with clamdscan, a time savings thanks to _not_ loading the database at startup is little as compared with scanning time of the data itself. 2) clamdscan can be configured (in clamav.conf) to use more features than you requested for clamscan in command line (e.g. ScanMail). If so, scanning with clamdscan can require more resources than simple 'clamscan'. -- Tomasz Papszun SysAdm @ TP S.A. Lodz, Poland | And it's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lodz.tpsa.pl/ | ones and zeros. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ClamAV.net/ A GPL virus scanner ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
