On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 13:17 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The first part I am not sure how to do. The second is easy enough, however, > when I used clamdscan the file system scan consumes inordinate amount of > CPU resources. I've tried starting clamd with a nice value of 17 and > running clamdscan with a nice value of 18, in hopes of slowing it down so > that the consumed CPU cycles are spread over more 'real time'. Why is this > important? In a virtualized environment such as the one I am running in, > memory and CPU resources are currently being shared by about a dozen > virtual servers. If one single server consumes 40-80% of cpu resources (2 > processor configuration), the act of running the scan on all systems is > going to completely bury the box. >
I haven't tested nice'ing clamd, but how did you test it? Nice'ing won't make a noticeable difference until there is contention for the CPU, did you try some benchmarking while clamd as running nice'ed against normally? -trog
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
