> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Rudd > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:10 AM > To: ClamAV users ML > Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan extremly slow > [...] > > That, or mail servers that scan their email in bulk batches > (like those > using mailscanner), where the latency of starting clamscan is MUCH > smaller than the latency in going through clamd (I've timed > both under > mailscanner and mimedefang; under mimedefang, using clamd is > a HUGE win, > as everyone here expects ... under mailscanner, using clamd > is a HUGE loss). > > > Though, the fastest method, for mailscanner, is using the > ClamAV perl > module for directly processing the messages. This wasn't > much of a win > under mimedefang though. > >
I assume you are talking about clamd as in clamdscan. The actual clamd (speak directly to the daemon) code is just as fast as clamavmodule, has a slight edge on batches (although I can't test the threading code which might be even faster in batches) and a huge saving on memory. So where is the huge loss in that? Rick -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
