"G.W. Haywood via clamav-users" <clamav-users@lists.clamav.net> wrote: > Hi there, > > On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, Dave Sill via clamav-users wrote: > > >It looks like my point was lost in the noise ... > > Sorry, I guess it was late and I was in a hurry to get to bed. :(
No worries. Thanks for your help. > >... on a much smaller scan, the cache made a huge difference. That > >tells me that the cache isn't large enough to significantly speed up > >large scans. > > It might be too soon to draw that conclusion. It's possible that the > daemon reloaded its database during your test, and I'd expect that to > cause any cached results to be discarded for obvious reasons. Fair enough. I re-ran the same scan three times after rebooting and got the following run times: 20:46 19:37 19:18 And the clamd logs show "SelfCheck: Database status OK" every 10 minutes but no DB updates. > >I don't see that the cache size is run-time configurable. Is that right? > > Correct, but I'd thought its size would be limited only by the RAM you > have free. If you look at the code in libclamav/cache.c you can see > that struct cache_set is just a few pointers, and if you only have 69k > files under your home directory I wouldn't expect storage of that many > sets of pointers to be an issue. > > I'll dig into this a bit more when I have chance if somebody doesn't > beat me to it. I only have 16 GB RAM on this system but it still shows 1 GB free. Maybe it limits itself somehow. -Dave _______________________________________________ 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
