Upgrade to clamav 0.90.2 makes scanning extremely slow
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
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...
Size: 299 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20070427/21f06710/rich.vcf
More information about the MailScanner