On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, 02:05 GMT+01 Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
> The README file says that --enable-experimental adds performance, but
> I found it only slows things down further, what sort of speedup is
> expected with the experimental code?
The --enable-experimental switch adds url-based phishing d
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 01:38:56AM +0100, Jan-Pieter Cornet wrote:
> I've just compiled a clamav 0.90 --enable-experimental, and installed
> that on another bunch of servers, I'll have statistics on its speed
> tomorrow. Preliminary results over 2000 samples aren't showing a huge
> improvement eith
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 09:07:17AM -0500, Robert S. Carroll wrote:
> Clamav 0.90 is about twice as fast as 0.88.1 by the way, (33 m 18 s)
> versus (62 m 35 s)!
That's odd, I'm seeing the reverse... at least, I'm comparing to
.88.7, not 0.88.1. Clamav 0.88.7: 142 ms per email, Clamav 0.90: 224 ms
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, 09:07 GMT-05 Robert S. Carroll wrote:
> With the "old" clamav, I ran a daily cron job that included saving the
> scan report to a file:
> clamscan -r -l /home/scan.txt --exclude=some_files
> --exclude=some_more_files /home
> This worked well and the "-l" simply added the s
With the "old" clamav, I ran a daily cron job that included saving the
scan report to a file:
clamscan -r -l /home/scan.txt --exclude=some_files
--exclude=some_more_files /home
This worked well and the "-l" simply added the summary to the report:
--
Scan
