Thomas Spuhler wrote: > On Wednesday 04 July 2007 23:38, Alexandros G. Fragkiadakis wrote:
>> use clamdscan instead > > Why continuing with this answer. Clamdscan takes 50% of the time of clamscan > and that still much to slow. > Here's five reasons - there's more: 1. If I could do something this simple and get a 100% improvement in performance I'd probably recommend it to. In fact I do recommend it. 2. I've also found that I get far better than 50% improvement. 3. I've never seen it not improve someone's performance. 4. Even when every other optimization has been implemented this will still improve performance. 5. It never decreases performance. dp _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
