sophos 3.66 to 3.67, load jumps?

[David Sullivan]

I did query this increased time about two weeks ago but noone seemed
interested or could confirm it for me, if you'd like me to take it up
with Sophos I can do.

David.


On 11 Mar 2003 at 16:43, Julian Field wrote:

> You don't fancy taking this issue up with Sophos support do you?
> Would sure help if they didn't nobble their (previously fast) scanner.
>
> Having a complaint from a user of something other than MailScanner
> would help quite a bit, I think.
>
> Thanks!
>
> At 16:27 11/03/2003, you wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 11 March 2003 4:08 pm, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I upgraded from sophos 3.66 to 3.67 yesterday and since then,
> > > > I've noticed that my load on my mail server has been much higher
> > > > than before.  Anybody else notice this?  I've dropped the Max
> > > > Children setting from 4 to 2 on my system (Sun E220R, 2 CPUs,
> > > > Sol 8) and that reduced the load.  I wonder what changed in
> > > > Sophos to make such a difference?
> > >       I think it is to do with the way in which sophos now
> > > packages its virus
> > > definition files - the scan time for one message has gone
> > > from 1 second to
> > > seven seconds on my (very small) mail hub.
> > >
> >Yeah 3.67 is not good at all, my MailScanner's running 3.66 still -
> >but I've got several machines using samba-vscan that used to quite
> >happily read the virus defs from an NFS share.  When I upgraded them
> >to 3.66 it nearly killed one of the machines (load average went up to
> >high 30's  before I got to it and killed samba.  I've had to go back
> >to installing and updating each machine seperately (not using NFS)
> >and the performance is still noticably poorer.
> >


==============================================================
This communication may contain privileged or confidential information which
is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please note that you may not distribute or use this
communication or the information it contains.  If this e-mail has reached you
in error, please delete it and any attachment.

Internet communications are not secure and Barnet College does not accept
legal responsibility for the content of this message.  Any views or opinions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of Barnet College.

Please note that Barnet College reserves the right to monitor the
source/destinations of all incoming or outgoing e-mail communications.
==============================================================