On 03.01.09 19:23, Luis Daniel Lucio Quiroz wrote: > I feel this because my CPU consumption goes up when clamav is working. > However, Im testing solution you givme.
If you have some solution that uses clamscan (not clamdscan), especially with versions of clamav older than 0.91, it costs much of time because loading the virus database. Use clamdscan and version of clamav new enough (which you should use anyway). The same applies for using spamassassin as opposite to spamd. sa-compile may help here but using spamd is still more efficient. > On Saturday 03 January 2009 17:10:25 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote: > > > >> That makes sense. However, the OP was looking to do the opposite.. Run > > > >> clamav *LAST* and try to shortcircuit before you get there. > > > > > > RobertH wrote: > > > > why do the opposite of the logical? > > > > On 03.01.09 17:42, Matt Kettler wrote: > > > Apparently the OP feels that clamav is heavy-weight enough to be worth > > > shortcircuiting before it. I'd disagree myself, and do it the way Justin > > > does (clamav first and shortcircuit everything else). > > > > I also agree clamav is more lightweight than SA. I run clamav-milter, (runs > > before spamass-milter). Since I don't want/need viruses nor phishes, I am > > happy to drop them. > > > > This issue was already discussed some time ago. I don't know where do these > > informations come from. > > > > Luis, could you explain where did you get the feeling that ClamAV takes > > more CPU time than SpamAssassin? > > -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. - Holmes, what kind of school did you study to be a detective? - Elementary, Watson.
