On Sunday 15 July 2007 08:50, David Boltz wrote: > Hi Luis, > > I've made the switch to clamd with the latest MailScanner that has direct > support for clamd. The speed is much much improved from the clamscan. It > might be worth looking into this. I'm glad I did. > > Regards, > --------------------------- > Dave B > > > > > > > Luca Gibelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 07/14/2007 08:04 AM > Please respond to > ClamAV users ML <clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> > > > To > ClamAV users ML <clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> > cc > > Subject > Re: [Clamav-users] clamscan 0.88.7 & clamscan 0.90.3 > > > > > > > > Hello Luis, > > > v0.88.7 clamscan some_file.txt: 2 seconds. > > v0.90.3 clamscan some_file.txt: 120 seconds. > > [snip] > > > Why 0.90.x clamscan load time is slower than 0.88.x? > > > > Will clamscan load time be improved in future versions? > > This topic has been beated to death: upgrade to 0.91. > > > > Best regards
Here are some comparisons: Here is the difference on a Duron 800MHz box: $clamscan ecard.exe ecard.exe: OK ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 137859 Engine version: 0.90.3 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 0 Data scanned: 0.13 MB Time: 105.215 sec (1 m 45 s) $ clamscan ecard.exe ecard.exe: OK ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Known viruses: 168720 Engine version: 0.91 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 0 Data scanned: 0.13 MB Time: 8.788 sec (0 m 8 s) clamdscan doesn't scan in either version: clamdscan ecard.exe /......./ecard.exe: lstat() failed. ERROR ----------- SCAN SUMMARY ----------- Infected files: 0 Time: 0.002 sec (0 m 0 s) Clamd now starts in a fraction of time (~3 minutes vs. 15sec) However, there seems to be a problem on some boxes and your mileage may very. May you want to wait a day or two. -- Thomas _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
