reducing MailScanner memory footprint, was: ClamAV 0.93 released

DAve dave.list at
Thu May 22 17:29:49 IST 2008

Richard Siddall wrote:
> Steve Freegard wrote:
>> If you have plenty memory to spare and MailScanner child start-up time 
>> is not an issue, then use Mail::ClamAV otherwise in all other cases 
>> use clamd as it uses considerably less RAM without any performance 
>> penalty as it uses threads as it seems that the signature database is 
>> shared amongst the scanner threads.
> Interesting discussion.  If both clamd and spamd can share data (virus
> signatures and rulesets) between threads, if that ability could be made
> available via Mail::ClamAV and the SpamAssassin libraries, then Julian
> might be able to build it into MailScanner and shrink the memory
> footprint (assuming it doesn't require too much restructuring of
> MailScanner itself).

Previously I was posting under "Re: New MS install is slow to an 
extreme". However this seems on topic for this thread. clamavmodule 
certainly does appear to have problems. We went through much 
troubleshooting and careful, deliberate, monitored, changes to isolate 
the issues causing our slowdown. Thankfully I have a very understanding 
employer and a client support staff that runs great interference for me.

While we, I, made the newb mistake of upgrading everything including OS 
in one fell swoop the main issue has been identified. Last night we 
shutdown clamavmodule and started up clamd. A picture is worth a 
thousand words.


In 50 years, our descendants will look back on the early years
of the internet, and much like we now look back on men with
rockets on their back and feathers glued to their arms, marvel
that we had the intelligence to wipe the drool from our chins.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list