Dennis Peterson wrote:
> How does one get a main.inc directory? I thought it was having
> ScriptedUpdates yes in the conf file and experimental code enabled at
> build time but that doesn't do it.
>
>
I believe ScriptedUpdates is enabled by default on non-experimental
build as well, unless yo
Török Edvin wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> # ls -sR1 /var/clamav.bad
>> 9145 main.cvd
>>0 main.inc
>
> You have both a main.inc, and a main.cvd. Thus those signatures are
> loaded twice.
> This problem has been discussed on this list a while ago, look in the
Török Edvin wrote:
> On 6/4/07, Fajar A. Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> # ls -sR1 /var/clamav.bad
>> 9145 main.cvd
>>0 main.inc
>>
>
> You have both a main.inc, and a main.cvd. Thus those signatures are
> loaded twice.
>
Hi Edwin,
thanks for your response.
I use home-made r
Hi,
I'm using clamav-0.91rc1 on Solaris10/sparc.
I encountered a problem during database update (running freshclam
manually) today
# freshclam
ClamAV update process started at Tue Jun 5 10:01:21 2007
main.inc is up to date (version: 43, sigs: 104500, f-level: 14, builder:
sven)
ERROR: getfile: d
Robert Blayzor wrote:
> René Berber wrote:
>> The timeout is caused by clamd taking 100% of the CPU for those 30 seconds,
>> if
>> you cannot increase the value then perhaps using 0.91rc1 is a better option
>> (reloading databases is 10x faster, yep back to the 3 sec mark).
>
>
> That's fine. A
René Berber wrote:
> The timeout is caused by clamd taking 100% of the CPU for those 30 seconds, if
> you cannot increase the value then perhaps using 0.91rc1 is a better option
> (reloading databases is 10x faster, yep back to the 3 sec mark).
That's fine. All I really wanted to know. I'll wai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert Blayzor wrote:
> Just to add to this...
>
> ClamAV 0.88.7 - Reading/loading of the virus database (~94k signatures)
> took only 2-3 seconds.
>
> ClamAV 0.90.3 - 26-30 seconds. (122k signatures)
>
>
> Same hardware/OS, no additional change
Just to add to this...
ClamAV 0.88.7 - Reading/loading of the virus database (~94k signatures)
took only 2-3 seconds.
ClamAV 0.90.3 - 26-30 seconds. (122k signatures)
Same hardware/OS, no additional changes. Does this seem about right?
If so, it's causing clamd stream clients to hold up worker
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Noel Jones wrote:
> BTW, I'm *very* impressed with the db load speed improvements in
> 0.91rc1.
I agree. The load speed for 0.92 had me considering rolling back to 0.88,
but 0.91rc1 is a tremendous improvement. Thanks for a great service.
Jeffrey Moskot
System Administrator
At 04:44 PM 6/4/2007, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:02:54 +0200
>Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:22:48 -0500
> > Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I recompiled clamav without --enable-experimental and still have the
> > > error. It's un
Upgraded from ClamAV 0.88.7 to 0.90.3 on FreeBSD4.x. All seems stable,
but after the change I notice that when clamd reloads/re-reads the
database, it seems incoming streams are held up longer than expected and
clients timeout on the connection. (currently set to 10 seconds)
When the database rel
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 13:02:54 +0200
Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:22:48 -0500
> Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I recompiled clamav without --enable-experimental and still have the
> > error. It's unclear if this flag does anything interesting right n
On 6/2/07, Bill Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Noel, I started seeing the same problem this evening with ClamAV
> 0.90.3. I finally had to recompile with --disable-experimental and
> everything has run fine here since. I wonder if you disable the
> experimental sections in the clamd.conf fil
On Monday 04 June 2007 03:23, Rob Sterenborg wrote:
> >> Yes I'm aware of that. But.. clamdscan was as "slow" as clamscan as
> >> clamavmodule.
> >
> > I would suggest that you either use clamdscan or clamavmodule. The
> > time required for clamscan to load virus signatures (100 thousand or
> > so)
>> Yes I'm aware of that. But.. clamdscan was as "slow" as clamscan as
>> clamavmodule.
> I would suggest that you either use clamdscan or clamavmodule. The
> time required for clamscan to load virus signatures (100 thousand or
> so) is enough (20-something seconds on my system) to justify the
> ch
Rob Sterenborg wrote:
> Yes I'm aware of that. But.. clamdscan was as "slow" as clamscan as
> clamavmodule.
I would suggest that you either use clamdscan or clamavmodule. The time
required for clamscan to load virus signatures (100 thousand or so) is
enough (20-something seconds on my system) to ju
>> So, I'm not so sure if this is ClamAV related. Maybe this doesn't
>> belong here... I'll continue searching.
>
> Are you using clamscan instead of clamdscan? That could be
> the reason for your trouble. Both programs take a long time to start
> up, easily long enough to overrun a timeout.
Lo
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 11:13 +0530, BG Mahesh wrote:
> hi
>
> We are using clamav-0.90.1 on Linux. Emails that are infected with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] are getting thru. Norton on our PC has been detecting
> it.
> Any idea what needs to be done to fix this problem? Since many users had
> performance i
18 matches
Mail list logo
