Ketil Froyn wrote: > The reason that I have chosen clamscan rather than the clamdscan is > that I prefer not to have services running if I don't have to, in case > of memory leaks or hackability-issues or something like that. Are > these arguments broken (since you say there's never a good reason to > use clamscan)? Well you wouldn't have been hit by this problem for starters! ;-)
All daemonized AVs are better than their command line versions. All AVs consist of an "engine" and "libraries" and "pattern files" which tells the engine the characteristics of particular viruses. Those pattern files and libraries all need to be loaded each time the command line version is started. It takes time and a lot of CPU and memory. The daemonized versions just do it once, then sit there waiting for the much smaller client (clamdscan in this case) to simply tell it "go scan this directory". It scans and reports, and then waits for the next command. It is better to have one process taking 50M of RAM and 10% CPU sitting around instead of 10-20 processes taking 49M RAM each and gobbling 80% of your CPU. (a process starting up uses more CPU than one that's already running - initialization doesn't come for free) -- Cheers Jason Haar Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd. Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417 PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today Register for a JBoss Training Course. Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005. For more info visit: http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7628&alloc_id=16845&op=click _______________________________________________ Qmail-scanner-general mailing list Qmail-scanner-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qmail-scanner-general
