Garrod M. Alwood
Garrod.Alwood at lorodoes.com
Mon Nov 30 18:26:23 GMT 2009
Yes thats to much. You should probably use the typical setup. That would be a waste of resources.
Garrod M. Alwood
garrod.alwood at lorodoes.com
From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack [fcusack at fcusack.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:19 PM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: RE: clamav MaxThreads?
On November 30, 2009 1:05:36 PM -0500 Rick Cooper <rcooper at dwford.com>
> ----Original Message----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
> [mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Frank
> Cusack Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 11:10 PM To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: clamav MaxThreads?
>> Should the clamav (clamd.conf) MaxThreads number match the number
>> of children that MailScanner is configured to run?
>> Sorry if this is documented somewhere.
> Max threads should be set to a value => the maximum parallel scans you
> expect to see, if MailScanner is the only process scanning then matching
> the number of MS children or maybe one more. Bear in mind the real memory
> used per clamd child process is actually small as the virus data is
> shared among them so the default should be fine unless you are running
> more MS children than 10
So I was planning on running 40 MS children -- not because I have high
mail volume or anything, but because the documentation suggested 5
children per CPU and I have 8 cores. Is that too many for my smallish
setup (150 mail accounts, typical small medium business email).
The machine running MS is also doing other stuff so I wouldn't want
MS to run away with all the CPU.
MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!
More information about the MailScanner