Mailscanner in mem

[Julian Field]

At 22:18 24/03/2003, you wrote:
>I revisited this w/ the newest f-prot (3.12d) to see if things have changed.
>No luck.  I submitted a bug to their site for 3.12d.  Here's a command line
>work around.

I agree with Nick completely, this should be in the -wrapper script. I will
add it as an optional bit of code in the wrapper.

Please try the attached -wrapper (with the "RamDisk" variable set to "yes").


>/usr/local/f-prot/f-prot `/usr/bin/find /dev/shm/$workdir -type f`
>
>As a hack, maybe change the call on line 464 (sub TryOneCommercial) of
>SweepViruses.pm?
>
>Here is the patch.  I wish I had a server I could test this on but since I
>don't, this is untested.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--- SweepViruses.pm     2003-03-24 16:56:22.000000000 -0500
>+++ SweepViruses2.pm    2003-03-24 16:57:07.000000000 -0500
>@@ -461,7 +461,7 @@
>      } else {
>        # In the child
>        POSIX::setsid();
>-      exec "$sweepcommand $voptions $subdir"
>+      exec "$sweepcommand $voptions `/usr/bin/find $subdir -type f`"
>          or die "Can't run commercial checker $scanner (\"$sweepcommand\"):
>$!";
>      }
>    };
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>If you try it, I'd be curious to see how well it works.  I too would like to
>put the working directory on /dev/shm.
>
>lindsay
>
>
>
>On Monday 24 March 2003 06:51, you wrote:
> > Try scanning a directory structure in tmpfs with the latest F-Prot code,
> > it's possible they have fixed it.
> > Let me know what you find.
> >
> > At 11:20 24/03/2003, you wrote:
> > >Tnx
> > >I use fprot so there goes that idea
> > >
> > >Mozzi
> > >
> > >On Monday 24 March 2003 12:55, you wrote:
> > > > At 09:26 24/03/2003, you wrote:
> > > > >Hallo all
> > > > >
> > > > >Can anyone remeber the subject for the thrad on running mailscanner in
> > > > > memory?
> > > > >
> > > > >I have a box with 3Gig ram here and I need the performance.
> > > >
> > > > You can safely run with the MailScanner/incoming directory in RAM (just
> > > > use tmpfs) as long as you aren't using F-Prot (which for some reason
> > > > doesn't like tmpfs and won't recurse directories properly). Putting
> > > > your mqueue.in and mqueue in RAM is very dodgy unless your RAM is
> > > > battery-backed and your system is never rebooted with anything in its
> > > > mail queues.
> > > >
> > > > If you are running Linux, then add a "-" in front of the log filename
> > > > in syslog.conf. So instead of it logging to
> > > >          /var/log/maillog
> > > > make it
> > > >          -/var/log/maillog
> > > > That will stop syslogd from fsync-ing after every log entry, which can
> > > > make quite a difference to your disk traffic.
> > > >
> > > > Running with MailScanner/incoming in tmpfs can add up to 30% to your
> > > > max throughput.
> > > > --
> > > > Julian Field
> > > > www.MailScanner.info
> > > > Professional Support Services at www.MailScanner.biz
> > > > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: f-prot-wrapper
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2738 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20030325/9fab024e/f-prot-wrapper.obj
-------------- next part --------------
--
Julian Field
www.MailScanner.info
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support