Joshua Megerman wrote:
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 08:13:29 pm Quey wrote:
If you goto www.clamav.net there is a link to it.
I heard they corrected the problem you mention in current, but clam is
still way to slow compared to other scanners so I don't use it anymore.
Q
Are you using clamscan or clamd/clamdscan? If the former, that's why it's so
slow - see if you can switch. Also, what interface to your AV software are
Have tried various methods, its still in the order of 20 times slower
than f-prot which we trying to avoid because of the extortionate license
costs.
you using? Something like qmail-scanner that's a perl script is much slower
good god no :) we dumped qmail-scanner years ago, we use MailScanner far
more efficient use of resources
One other hint - something I do for all my servers (I use simscan not, but
I've also used it with qscanq in the past) is put the scanning directory onto
a ramdisk (I use tempfs these days, but a true ramdisk would be even better
Yep already done that, we needed to for vast imcrease in speed of
handling spamassassin checks.
There was even a recent thread on clamav list about the speed of it
compared to the likes of f-prot and others.
if you can dedicate the memory to it). It prevents the excess disk I/O
overhead that slows the process down, and since it's transient data anyway
that shouldn't get through in case of an error, the fact that the scanning
space isn't crash-proof is a non-issue...
Josh
