Upgrade to clamav 0.90.2 makes scanning extremely slow

Richard Lynch rich at mail.wvnet.edu
Thu Apr 26 22:26:05 IST 2007

DAve wrote:
> Richard Lynch wrote:
>> Julian Field wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> What's wrong with just using clamavmodule? You need to use 
>>> Mail::ClamAV 0.20 with ClamAV 0.90 and later, which is all included 
>>> in my ClamAV+SA package.
>>> I don't understand the sudden rush to clamd at all. Can someone 
>>> explain to me please?
>>> Jules.
>> The only advantage I see is that it's all maintained by a single 
>> source.  That is, the ClamAV team maintains clamd and clamdscan 
>> together.  There's no third party perl package that may not be up to 
>> date.  I don't know if there's a performance improvement one way or 
>> the other.  It's conceivable that clamdscan/clamd performs better in 
>> a multiprocessor environment by spreading the load across other 
>> processors.  It's just as possible that the overhead of the 
>> communications between the two costs too much to justify doing it 
>> that way.
>> I would probably suggest that clamdscan/clamd always be used instead 
>> of just clamscan.  From what I've seen using clamscan alone is the 
>> worst possible case performance wise.
>> Rich
> I can't disagree with that but I can say performance is not 
> unreasonable using clamscan. Messages for us take from 2 to 6 seconds 
> to process in batches from 1 to 4 messages. We stop most of our 
> messages long before they ever hit AV scanning. Not using clamdscan or 
> clamavmodule leaves us with one less process to monitor on our MS 
> servers, and changes/updates made by the ClamAV team have never 
> adversely affected us (so far...).
> We may move up to clamdscan or clamavmodule in the near future when we 
> upgrade the MS servers, but right now I can see no compelling reason 
> to do so. I tend to always favor stability over performance, and I 
> abhor surprises on Monday mornings. Call me a Luddite, but new ain't 
> always better.
> Also, it's not like we don't process a few connections either, here 
> are a single days stats for one of our servers.
> Rejected by Greylisting       196,047
> Blocked for Pipelining         11,072
> Blocked for RFC                18,528
> Blocked for RBL                94,857
> Blocked for Bad Sender          2,746
> Blocked for No Account         12,000
> Found Spam Message             18,778
> Messages Delivered             33,840
> DAve
I understand completely.  I'm sure that for many the clamscan approach 
is satisfactory -- clean and simple.  My situation is such that I can't 
use clamscan at all.  We process nearly 2 million messages per day and 
clamscan can't keep up.  If we want to use ClamAV at all  then 
clamavmodule is our only choice.  In a high volume environment small 
performance improvements make huge differences overall.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rich.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 296 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20070426/3bdadca8/rich.vcf

More information about the MailScanner mailing list