clamavmodule or clamd ?
rcooper at dwford.com
Tue Mar 31 14:43:59 IST 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf
> Of Denis Beauchemin
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:29 AM
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: clamavmodule or clamd ?
> Eddie Hallahan a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> > We currently run a chunk of servers and am having real
> grief with the
> > perl clamav module. Our servers currently use clamavmodule in their
> > scanning. What would be the issues if we switched to clamd
> - i.e. would
> > this slow things down/speed them up, not make a difference?
> > Regards
> We switched to clamd a while ago and noticed that MS uses
> much less RAM:
> each child had its own copy of Clam loaded into RAM with
> now with clamd, only one instance is running. It definitely
> is not slower!
> Be aware, though, that with the external phishing signatures,
> clamd has
> a tendency to crash some times each day so make sure to
> monitor it and
> restart it as soon as it dies. I've heard people are using monit to
> this task (http://mmonit.com/monit/).
I have not experienced crashing do to 3d party signatures, ever.
If you are using a proper D/L script it should be checking the
Files before moving them into use. I did have a problem with
The official signatures a while back however.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner