1)How frequently will antivirus get updated?
2) Frequency of antivirus license updation.
3)What needs to be done if we need every day AV updation?
BR
Iranna
___
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
http:/
I have the clamav-unofficial-sigs-3.7.2 package installed and 4
signature libraries of SecuriteInfo.com
Here's the output of 'ls -l' of my /var/lib/clamav directory:
total 311024
-rw-r--r-- 1 clamav clamav78152 Jul 8 20:55 blurl.ndb
-rw-r--r-- 1 clamav clamav 6058730 Jul 8 20:50 bofhland_cra
I have a personal mail server at home too. It runs clamav with the base
sigs and spamassassin. It is a small atom-based server and takes about
1 minute to reload the base sigs. I've never noticed any problems
related to the reload time. In fact, I wasn't even aware that it was
taking that l
On Wed, July 8, 2015 5:09 pm, Jingo Administrator wrote:
> Well, I agree my hardware isn't rather stunning and doesn't help to
> (dramatically) reduce the time it takes for clamav to reload the
> database. I will draw my conclusion and start to drop the 3rd party sigs.
What signatures (3rd Party
Thanks for the suggestion, I probably will. In the meantime responses of
people made me clear two things :
1. My system is too low budget to have an acceptable time period in
which clamav is unresponsive. My mail server is for personal use, it is
just a home server with a few mail accounts. But doe
Thanks for the suggestions.
1. Of course I can update less frequently, but the problem stays, it'll
only occur less frequent
2. I noticed that setting the update to one hour, in fact starts every
time about 5 minutes later, it shifts so to speak
3. Interesting idea, but on my system I think it woul
You've redefined the real problem multiple times. Pick one and stay with it.
To properly diagnose *your* system it would be very helpful to see a SAR report
for CPU/Swap/Paging/Cache/Memory activity/IOWait before, during, and after a
signature refresh.
Running sar -A will provide coarse infor
Well, I agree my hardware isn't rather stunning and doesn't help to
(dramatically) reduce the time it takes for clamav to reload the
database. I will draw my conclusion and start to drop the 3rd party
sigs. But no matter how much I can narrow down the problem of the reload
time, and now I come back
On 7/8/15 8:11 AM, Jingo Administrator wrote:
Scanning is not the bottleneck, reloading
the database is.
Because you're wrong about this you cannot correct the real problem. The
bottleneck is the platform. Nothing else.
dp
___
Help us build a compreh
On 7/8/2015 11:11 AM, Jingo Administrator wrote:
The system is a VIA PC3500G Motherboard with an onboard VIA Esther
processor 1500MHz. So, indeed, nothing special or heavy, I know,
although it's dedicated:-) . Scanning is not the bottleneck, reloading
the database is. Before this server I had a m
The system is a VIA PC3500G Motherboard with an onboard VIA Esther
processor 1500MHz. So, indeed, nothing special or heavy, I know,
although it's dedicated:-) . Scanning is not the bottleneck, reloading
the database is. Before this server I had a much slower system with a
VIA C3 processor and 512 M
On 7/7/2015 4:31 PM, Kris Deugau wrote:
Jingo Administrator wrote:
Already more than a week ago I posted my first question to the list. I
must admit I'm a bit disappointed that nobody responds. Is it that I
asked a silly question? Or is the issue just to hard to solve and just
nobody wants to bu
It seems to be the elephant in the room, but the root cause of your problem is
you have a resource-constrained system. You don't have enough RAM or CPU to do
what you want. I had the same problem with older Solaris systems running SPARC
processors and no amount of cleverness on my part helped.
Apologies for cross posting. This question is about Exim and clamd.
Specifically, how can we deal with a clam daemon that’s unresponsive (for five
minutes) while updating rules. The obvious thing would be to wait a bit longer
rather than time out, but I can’t see a control for that. I have some
On 08/07/15 17:33, Rafael Ferreira wrote:
> Well, the progress you see is likely to be transfer, not processing, time
> since that’s where most time is going to be spent for a sizable file anyways
> (under normal circumstances) so I doubt clamd is your main latency source
> here.
? I said clam
Jingo Administrator wrote:
Already more than a week ago I posted my first question to the list. I
must admit I'm a bit disappointed that nobody responds. Is it that I
asked a silly question? Or is the issue just to hard to solve and just
nobody wants to burn his fingers on it?
On 07/07/2015 10
16 matches
Mail list logo
