On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 12:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What I'm doing, is moving the spamd and clamd processes to another > machine, to take the load off the qmail server. >
OK... > It seems that clamd has to actually have access to the file being > scanned - the only way to accomplish this is with NFS, which will put > even more of a load on the qmail box. That's a step in the wrong direction. > Why do you say that? Do you think it'll be less load to instead get "networked" versions of spamd and clamd so that your Q-S servers have to COPY the entire message over the network to the clamd/spamd server? Why do you think that'll be less load than just using NFS? NFS over UDP should be faster than short-lived TCP-based connections (they're the worst kind) You may be correct - I just don't think you should throw NFS out as quickly as that. -- Cheers Jason Haar Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd. Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417 PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
