Clamd Verses ClamAVModule timing

[Res]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Top posting because its easier..

Rick, I think you need to test with more messages in batch (200), and 
have many messages with attachments and some of them between 50-500k, even 
some couple around 1 or 2 megs. If you want to do time tests, you need to 
make it close to real world as  possible.


On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Rick Cooper wrote:

> I finally did some timing comparisons between the clamd (current full batch
> version) scanning verses clamavmodule. The listed times are pretty average
> for all the tests. Each test was conducted against the same message/batch
> and the batches were 20 copies of the same message. I found something a bit
> interesting.
>
> ClamAVmodule beat clamd on a single message every time when using the
> PING/PONG check (test if clamd is alive and responsive before calling it to
> scan) but clamd was much faster scanning batches even with the PING/PONG
> test. Removing the PING/PONG code resulted in clamd being much faster with
> both single and batch scans. NOTE the times changed between tests but the
> differences were pretty consistent in terms of percentages.
>
> With PING/PONG
>
> Clamd
> Batch  ELAPSED TIME : 0.261474
> Single ELAPSED TIME : 0.154804
>
>
> ClamAVModule
> Batch  ELAPSED TIME : 1.058038
> Single ELAPSED TIME : 0.035388
>
> Without PING/PONG
>
> Clamd
> Batch  ELAPSED TIME : 0.939942
> Single ELAPSED TIME : 0.045016
>
> ClamAVModule
> Batch  ELAPSED TIME : 2.430126
> Single ELAPSED TIME : 0.069513
>
> My question is should I remove the PING/PONG code all together, leave it for
> debugging only, or just leave it as is. Even without the PING/PONG test you
> will still get a log message if MailScanner cannot connect to the clamd
> daemon. Clearly the process of building the connection, PING/PONG and
> reconnect for scanning has overhead and it's not a big deal on the batches
> but would make a difference in the single message scans. My opinion is to
> remove the PING/PONG all together as the daemon has proven pretty stable for
> the past year or so, and most people run some form of daemon check script
> anyway. Plus I can provide my clamd check script for the bin dir if
> requested.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rick Cooper
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>

- -- 
Cheers
Res
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGYz0lsWhAmSIQh7MRAm2DAJ9jqCFOD3B8i+V1EiGNkh6Ri8jZKwCdGicC
phccf5ah+vI2aPKTMa3Brls=
=2gjr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----