>> Yes I'm aware of that. But.. clamdscan was as "slow" as clamscan as >> clamavmodule. > I would suggest that you either use clamdscan or clamavmodule. The > time required for clamscan to load virus signatures (100 thousand or > so) is enough (20-something seconds on my system) to justify the > choice.
Yes, I was just trying to say that it didn't matter which method I chose; all of them would timeout after a short time. >> I don't understand why it wasn't working when I *completely* >> (personally checked) remove the package (using apt-get and dpkg) and >> reinstall it, but I'm not going to complain: this was my excuse to >> install the latest version from source. > > It would probably be helpful if you also check which part of > your system is heavily-loaded at that time. e.g. Does clamd consume > 100% CPU usage, or disk I/O is very heavy, etc. I'm afraid I can't check that anymore. We have 2 mailservers that had the same problem and CPU and disk load stays at a nice level now on both. IMO this was not a performance issue. These boxes have 2 dualcore 3GHz CPU's and 2GB RAM, running on hardware mirrored disks and emails being processed reside in tmpfs. At this point we do not receive that much email, compared to the boxes we have running (but that *will* grow in the future). I think the issue was that we experienced a power outage which caused the UPS-es to work beautifully but not the airco's (I still curse the man who designed this) which let the temp rise to above 50C in the room. Servers went down, files got -apparently- corrupted. Now, if I then remove an installation and reinstall it (be it from package), I would imagine it to work but it didn't. Also, it didn't give any errors I could work with (except for timeouts). Thanks anyway for the response. Grts, Rob _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
