On 2003-12-02, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>> --- SIGSEGV (Segmentation fault) @ 0 (0) ---
>> stat("/var/log/clamav/clamd.log", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644,
>> st_size=2287932, ...}) = 0 write(3, "Tue Dec 2 01:52:44 2003 ->
>> ERROR: accept() failed.\n", 52) = 52 accept(0, ^C
>> Process 15124 detached
>> [EMAIL
On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Jakub Jankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# strace -s 512 -p 15124
> Process 15124 attached - interrupt to quit
> accept(0, 0, NULL) = ? ERESTARTSYS (To be
> restarted)--- SIGTERM (Terminated) @ 0 (0) ---
> time([10
On 2003-12-01, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>> Looks like clamd refuses to die on `killall clamd' when UseProcesses
>> directive is turned on:
>
>Hmm... it shutdowns cleanly under my Linux (2.4.18, workstation) and
>under Solaris 8 (SPARC).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# strace -s 512 -p 15124
Process 15124 attached
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:35:48 +0100 (CET)
Jakub Jankowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-11-29, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>
> >The current CVS code contains a new directive: UseProcesses that will
> >cause clamd to use processes instead of threads. Initial version but
> >seems to work ;) It should
On 2003-11-29, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
>The current CVS code contains a new directive: UseProcesses that will
>cause clamd to use processes instead of threads. Initial version but
>seems to work ;) It should be really useful for clamav-milter users.
Looks like clamd refuses to die on `killall clamd' w
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 08:39:02 -0500
Flinn Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> There _are_ current issues with thread-based clamd (and
> >thread-based > software in general, as everything (memory, fd's
> >etc)is shared > between threads:
> >
> > No wonder there are issues with threading in clamd
On Nov 29, 2003, at 5:17 AM, Marc Balmer wrote:
There _are_ current issues with thread-based clamd (and thread-based
software in general, as everything (memory, fd's etc)is shared
between threads:
No wonder there are issues with threading in clamd. When I pointed
the author at "Programming wit
Marc Balmer wrote:
There _are_ current issues with thread-based clamd (and thread-based
software in general, as everything (memory, fd's etc)is shared between
threads:
No wonder there are issues with threading in clamd. When I pointed the
author at "Programming with Posix Threads" he respon
There _are_ current issues with thread-based clamd (and thread-based
software in general, as everything (memory, fd's etc)is shared between
threads:
No wonder there are issues with threading in clamd. When I pointed the
author at "Programming with Posix Threads" he responded that he had no
ti
Marc Balmer wrote:
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
The current CVS code contains a new directive: UseProcesses that will
cause clamd to use processes instead of threads. Initial version but
seems to work ;) It should be really useful for clamav-milter users.
What are the advantages of processes vs. threads
Tomasz Kojm wrote:
The current CVS code contains a new directive: UseProcesses that will
cause clamd to use processes instead of threads. Initial version but
seems to work ;) It should be really useful for clamav-milter users.
What are the advantages of processes vs. threads in this case? Doesn't
The current CVS code contains a new directive: UseProcesses that will
cause clamd to use processes instead of threads. Initial version but
seems to work ;) It should be really useful for clamav-milter users.
Best regards,
Tomasz Kojm
--
oo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ClamAV
12 matches
Mail list logo
