bdc replacement

[Glenn Steen]

On 10/04/06, Dhawal Doshy <dhawal at netmagicsolutions.com> wrote:
> Scott Silva writes:
>
> > Glenn Steen spake the following on 4/10/2006 11:43 AM:
> >> On 10/04/06, Dhawal Doshy <dhawal at netmagicsolutions.com> wrote:
> >>> Hello List,
> >>>
> >>> BDC has lately become a cpu hog (or maybe i discovered recently). Am
> >>
> >> Really? How bad is it? Could you perhaps describe your setup a bit,
> >> and perhaps some volume figures....?
> >>
> >>> wondering if there are any other alternatives in the command line virus
> >>> scanning world that are free (as in beer) OR relatively cheap and
> >>> consume much less resources.
> >>>
> >>> I've been using clamav and uvscan for quite some time (qmail-scanner
> >>> days) and am more / less happy with their performance.. so any other
> >>> suggestions would be welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Also a couple of questions for Julian:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Shouldn't "LogFile=/tmp/log.bdc.$$" in bitdefender-wrapper point to
> >>> something like /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/log.bdc.$$ and take
> >>> advantage of the tmpfs partition?
> >>>
> >>> 2. Also i don't see any options being used in the bitdefender-wrapper
> >>> script (similar to ExtraOptions in clamav-wrapper). Any particular
> >>> reason why? Is it because MailScanner handles all the unpacking of
> >>> attachments?
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> - dhawal
> >>
> >> Well, there are some that are free for private/home/non-commercial use
> >> .... like Antivir (or avira or whatever they like to be called....
> >> http://www.free-av.com), AVG etc... (Avast is too, if you'd like to
> >> try your hand at writing a wrapper (I don't think it is included in
> >> the "supported set":-)). Panda isn't free, even though they say so,
> >> since you need to pay for updates, and besides.... It's not that well
> >> come together (although Ricks "new" wrapper makes it somewhat less of
> >> a hog), so I wouldn't recommend that one ... But it is cheap, one has
> >> to give it that... If one were a bit sarcastic, one might say it is
> >> cheap in every sense of the word;).
> >>
> >> If I'd look at anything new, it'd probably be ine if the four: AVG,
> >> Sophos, F-secure or F-prot.... with possibly nod32 as a remote
> >> outsider:-).
> >>
> >> Anyway, I've been happy with the same setup you've got (clam, bdc and
> >> mcafee), so would realy be interrested to hear what numbers you can
> >> present.
> >> Cheers
> > I run the same 3 and haven't seen any performance problems. Are you running
> > the gcc3x version, or do you still have the older (i think gcc29x) version?
> > The older one isn't even offered on their website, although I have them somewhere.
>
> Hey guys.. thanks for your replies.. it really isn't as bad as i've
> projected but then the average cpu usage is 40% and bdc is responsible for
> most of it. What i am worried about is the constant/consistent 35-40% usage.
>
> All systems are:
> Dell PE1850, Dual Xeons 2.8 Ghz (with HT enabled), 3GB RAM, 10K RPM SCSI
> Disks Running 32bit centos 4.3 with the following:
>
> MS 4.50.10/postfix 2.2.5
> SA 3.11/pyzor/razor/dcc
> uvscan v4.4.00/bdc 7.0.1-3.linux-gcc3x.i586/clam 0.88.1
>
> The servers process about 70-80K mails each + lot more rejections at the mta
> level.
>
>  - dhawal

Well, doesn't sound like anything to get desparately anxious about:-).
After all, *some* use of the cpus are OK:):)

(Joking aside) Do you see any other "danger signs"? Or is it "just"
cpu? Any particular reason why you have HT on? Does it really give you
any real (measurable) benefit?

--
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se