sorry for the bad wrapping. not sure how to make yahoo do better than
that
--- René Berber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> email builder wrote:
> [snip]
> > Respectfully (you sound like you know a hell of a lot more than I do
> about
> > these things), the OP presum
> If you are not doing real benchmarking those numbers are meaningless. So
> it was
> 60% but under what real load (messages per second)? Is clamd doing the
> same
> work or perhaps the 60% was with some really nasty zip inside zip virus?
>
> If you only look occasionally at load (and BTW using
--- Noel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:39 PM 5/12/2005, email builder wrote:
>
> >Why would that help? If amavis/clam CPU usage with .80 is lower than with
> >.84 (and .83 for me), then the problem seems to point right at clam
> (unless
> >t
--- Odhiambo Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Mike Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20050512 22:19]: wrote:
> > I run clamd .80 on Solaris 2.7 and call File::Scan::ClamAV from perl to
> scan
> > messages.
> >
> > With .80 top shows clamd < 5%, but on occasion once or twice a week
> climbs
>
Bump
> Hi,
>
> I recently upgraded from 0.80 to 0.83. I have seen a dramatic increase
> in
> CPU usage. Running inside of amavisd-new, my five amavis servers hog the
> CPU
> with around 20% each and up to 50% or more for one server process when the
> others are idling. Word had it that t
Hi,
I recently upgraded from 0.80 to 0.83. I have seen a dramatic increase in
CPU usage. Running inside of amavisd-new, my five amavis servers hog the CPU
with around 20% each and up to 50% or more for one server process when the
others are idling. Word had it that there was a "Digest bug" in
