Dennis Peterson wrote: > 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
Ran some quick tests: 43 tar files in a directory. Clamscan - Iterative scanning: time for file in *tar;do clamscan $file;done real 10m0.90s user 7m56.58s sys 0m47.66s Clamscan - Bulk scanning: time clamscan *tar real 7m21.06s user 6m0.58s sys 0m20.58s Clamdscan - Iterative scanning: time for file in *tar;do clamdscan $file;done real 10m2.35s user 0m0.01s sys 0m0.02s Clamdscan - Bulk scanning: time clamdscan *tar real 9m59.93s user 0m0.01s sys 0m0.01s Clamscan - Batch Scanning /usr/local/bin time clamscan * real 0m17.60s user 0m14.47s sys 0m0.99s Clamdscan - Batch Scanning /usr/local/bin time clamdscan * real 0m13.77s user 0m0.07s sys 0m0.05s Clamscan - Iterative scanning /usr/local/bin time for file in *;do clamscan $file;done real 11m38.07s user 8m41.52s sys 1m59.38s Clamdscan - Iterative scanning /usr/local/bin time for file in *;do clamdscan $file;done real 0m17.21s user 0m0.01s sys 0m0.06s _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
