On 06/09/2019 12:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, Reio Remma via clamav-users wrote:
I guess many of us are just running too old hardware. :)
Here's a comparison between my mail server and identical config
running in a VM.
Sep 6 09:41:06 mail clamd[31441]: Reading databases from
/var/lib/clamav
Sep 6 09:44:05 mail clamd[31441]: Database correctly reloaded
(10741767 ...
Sep 6 09:56:43 vm clamd[2108]: Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
Sep 6 09:57:17 vm clamd[2108]: Database correctly reloaded
(10742128 ...
Fri Sep 6 08:49:08 2019 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
Fri Sep 6 08:50:18 2019 -> Database correctly reloaded (8830356
signatures)
Fri Sep 6 09:48:25 2019 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
Fri Sep 6 09:49:49 2019 -> Database correctly reloaded (8830677
signatures)
Fri Sep 6 10:47:36 2019 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
Fri Sep 6 10:48:53 2019 -> Database correctly reloaded (8830954
signatures)
average ~1:20 on X3440 CPU (10 years old).
On 06/09/2019 11:31, G.W. Haywood wrote:
That's very useful, thanks. Can you compare the costs of running
them for us?
On 06.09.19 11:54, Reio Remma via clamav-users wrote:
I suspect the i9-9900 is cheaper to actually run than the old
whichever Core is in the mail server. :D
I think that virtual/cloud server has to be cheaper than power usage
of the
existing server (plus housing, if you pay for that one).
(Un)fortunately, we're in a building with practically free electricity
due to some management error.
Otherwise I would have made a case to upgrade the server long ago based
on power usage alone. :)
_______________________________________________
clamav-users mailing list
clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
