Upgrade to clamav 0.90.2 makes scanning extremely slow

Richard Lynch rich at mail.wvnet.edu
Fri Apr 27 14:51:28 IST 2007

Out of curiosity I decided to do a little testing of the performance of 
the three ClamAV methods:  clamscan, clamdscan, and clamavmodule.  This 
is not meant to be a full blown scientific test, merely a quick "rough 
idea" measurement.

I have a directory  with over 300 virus infected files in it.  Running 
the three methods shows...

   clamscan:           11.68 seconds

   clamdscan:           6.56 seconds

   clamavmodule:    4.50 seconds

Results for clamscan and clamdscan we obtained using the "time" 
command.  Results for clamavmodule were obtained using the perl 
Time::HiRes module.  I had to use that to avoid adding in the time for 
the initial database load.

This is pretty much what I expected.  Clamavmodle is the quickest since 
it doesn't have to load the database on every scan and it calls the 
ClamAV libraries directly.   Clamdscan is next since it doesn't have to 
load the DB every time but it does have the overhead of the 
communications with the clamd process.  And clamscan is slowest (by a 
significant margin) since it has to load the database on every batch.

So, performance wise, clamavmodule is the best.  However, it does have 
the problem with being kept up to date with ClamAV changes.  Clamdscan 
is a little slower but avoids the problem with development changes in 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rich.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 299 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20070427/21f06710/rich.vcf

More information about the MailScanner mailing list