Le Mar 3 aoû 11:15:39 2004, Xavier Beaudouin écrit:
> Humm ... What about using FreeBSD 5.2.1 and set in /etc/make.conf :
>
> PTHREAD_CFLAGS?=
> PTHREAD_LIBS?=-lkse
On FreeBSD 5, you may able to swap on the fly to your favorite thread
library editing /etc/libmap.conf.
See libmap.conf(5) for det
Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
Humm ... What about using FreeBSD 5.2.1 and set in /etc/make.conf :
PTHREAD_CFLAGS?=
PTHREAD_LIBS?=-lkse
...
Works like a charm for me
Because 5.2.1 is not intended for production servers and is still
considered a technology release.
--
Robert Blayzor, BOFH
INOC, LLC
[
If nobody has negative experiences, I will probably give this a spin
and
report back to the list if there is interest.
I think the biggest problem is not the default threads in FreeBSD 4.x,
I believe that a lot of problems with threads is the FreeBSD 4.x
libc_r functions, which most of them are
Jan Pieter Cornet wrote:
I wonder if anyone here tried compiling clamd on FreeBSD with linuxthreads
installed? Does that work as expected? At least configure for clamav-0.75-1
does not try to detect liblthread, but it is of course easy to install
linuxthreads in such a way that clamav will pick it
We recently discovered that on FreeBSD (4.10), clamd isn't really multi-
threaded, as the default FreeBSD pthread is userland threads only, which
blocks on disk access. As a result, we had occasional long delays when
scanning multiple mails at the same time.
I wonder if anyone here tried compiling
* Fajar Arief Nugraha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030501 05:38]: wrote:
Maybe a *BSD problem.
> NO ...
>
> What is the problem anyway? Memory leak? Crash?
>
> I've been using it for 3 days now on Solaris and it seems to work fine.
> MUCH better than the previous or stable snapshot :(
>
> OD
NO ...
What is the problem anyway? Memory leak? Crash?
I've been using it for 3 days now on Solaris and it seems to work fine.
MUCH better than the previous or stable snapshot :(
ODHIAMBO Washington wrote:
* Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030430 17:39]: wrote:
Hi!
* Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030430 17:39]: wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Just tested the latest snapshot of ClamAV, clamd seems completely dead.
> > Nothing happens when I run clamdscan. Is Clamd under FreeBSD just
> > working worse and worse?
>
> Please don't use clamav-20030424, it seems to
* Daniel Wiberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20030430 15:43]: wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just tested the latest snapshot of ClamAV, clamd seems completely dead.
> Nothing happens when I run clamdscan. Is Clamd under FreeBSD just
> working worse and worse?
True;-)
Go back to the previous snapshot!!! It's much b
> Hi!
>
> Just tested the latest snapshot of ClamAV, clamd seems completely dead.
> Nothing happens when I run clamdscan. Is Clamd under FreeBSD just
> working worse and worse?
Please don't use clamav-20030424, it seems to be seriously broken.
Best regards,
Tomasz Kojm
--
oo.
Hi!
Just tested the latest snapshot of ClamAV, clamd seems completely dead.
Nothing happens when I run clamdscan. Is Clamd under FreeBSD just
working worse and worse?
--
Daniel Wiberg
www.wiberg.nu
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
11 matches
Mail list logo