Jim Maul wrote: > > Why the hell would they want to suggest that?? This would totally > > limit the ability to scale. Are there any docs suggesting what the > > 'benefits' are? When I took over here at my current job, qmailscanner > > was setup to use clamscan instead of clamdscan. We send/receive over a > > million mails a day and the cpus were sitting at 100% constantly. The > > first thing i did was to change to clamdscan and cpu usage dropped > > unbelievably. > > > > First off, the QMR install is for people who are new to this type of > setup and is NOT meant to be used in a full large volume production > environment. If you are using the QMR setup in this type of enviroment > its your own damn fault. The suggested linking of clamdscan to clamscan > > was done to eliminate usage of clamd which at the time (i believe around > > ver 0.6 or so) there were some serious stbility issues. To avoid these > issues the site author just suggested the linking. This is why i > suggested that the instructions are out of date. Yes the site was > updated recently, but no, this text was not changed.
It will be handbags at dawn soon :) As with any tutorial, it should only be used as a general guide. Anyone who follows a tutorial to the letter really are asking for problems. The problems tutorials cause with individual installations are down to the laziness of the installer. There is ample documentation supplied by the Clam team. A percentage of people just can't be arsed to spend anytime learning, which is why these problems arise. They take the quick approach, instead of doing some initial revision. As an example, how many times do the same questions get asked on M.L's, when the answers are in the archives? ( Dog collar off :) Matt _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
