-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 07:12:21AM -0700, Thomas Spuhler wrote:
>> > ..there is a problem with in CPU or in clamscan ? >> use clamdscan instead >Why continuing with this answer. Clamdscan takes 50% of the time of clamscan >and that still much to slow. Depends on the application. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# clamdscan /tmp/dump.pl /tmp/dump.pl: OK - ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Infected files: 0 Time: 0.001 sec (0 m 0 s) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# clamscan /tmp/dump.pl /tmp/dump.pl: OK - ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 132879 Engine version: 0.90.3 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 0 Data scanned: 0.00 MB Time: 6.407 sec (0 m 6 s) Single file scanning will always be slower with clamscan due to the time it takes to load the viruses. How much slower depends on what you're doing with it. If you're scanning 40 or 50 files, clamdscan's lead gets narrower. If you're scanning an entire partition, there's not really any noticeable difference (what's 6 seconds compared to an hour). And that 6 seconds above is on a really fast machine with fast scsi subsystems. - -- Regards... Todd When engineers want simple solutions to complicated social problems, freedom is the first victim... --Stephane Bortzmeyer Linux kernel 2.6.17-6mdv 3 users, load average: 0.22, 0.24, 0.20 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGjUUwY2VBGxIDMLwRAvqBAJ9rOFaJfGA2DLRElhiLSpnYMRRFSACdEf41 cO7cb1EpTXzPQfbTPr0nfC8= =6cWc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
