Chuck Swiger in message 'Re: [Clamav-users] XML and large file scan
performance' wrote:
>
>
> The 133MB/s # you mentioned is the bus speed, or what you can do ideally if
> you
> only make small transactions which stay in cache. In practice, you top out at
> 90%
des in message 'Re: [Clamav-users] XML and large file scan performance' wrote:
> On 12/17/05, GiM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The 7MB file took 1.5s with the other scanner. Looking at disk
> transfer speeds doesn't come close to explaining the PowerPoint sca
On 12/17/05, GiM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> des in message '[Clamav-users] XML and large file scan performance' wrote:
> > In investigating heavy load during clamd scanning on an email server,
> > I noticed that scanning XML files appears to take longer than simi
GiM wrote:
> To ClamAV users ML in message 'Re: [Clamav-users] XML and large file scan
> performance' wrote:
>> 7MB XML file in 0.3s ?
>>
>> let's do some math:
>> 7*1024^2 * 10 /3 / 1024^2
>> 23.3 MB/s
>>
>> Do you have SCSI drive ?
To ClamAV users ML in message 'Re: [Clamav-users] XML and large file scan
performance' wrote:
>
> 7MB XML file in 0.3s ?
>
> let's do some math:
> 7*1024^2 * 10 /3 / 1024^2
> 23.3 MB/s
>
> Do you have SCSI drive ?
> Cause, correct me if I'm
des in message '[Clamav-users] XML and large file scan performance' wrote:
> In investigating heavy load during clamd scanning on an email server,
> I noticed that scanning XML files appears to take longer than similar
> sized binary files. I'm also seeing a big drop
In investigating heavy load during clamd scanning on an email server,
I noticed that scanning XML files appears to take longer than similar
sized binary files. I'm also seeing a big drop off in performance when
scanning certain large files, e.g. PowerPoint, Word. Tests with
clamdscan on a dual PIII
