On Tuesday 31 May 2005 1:26 pm, Aecio F. Neto wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 31/05/2005 15:43:22: > > On Tuesday 31 May 2005 1:03 pm, Aecio F. Neto wrote: > > > I am using a linux debian under a sparc64 (Sun 4 Ultra - Ultrasparc > > II) > > > > for a mail gateway system. > > > This box runs qmail + qmail-scanner + clamav to filter virus messages. > > > > > > We are experiencing a very high load on this box. Diabling > > qmail-scanner > > > > (that calls clamd) results in having this box under expected load > > back. > > > > I know clamd uses more CPU than without it, but this box - IMO - > > should be > > > > enough to hold mail messages we have up to now. > > > > Switch from qmail-scanner to simscan > > http://www.inter7.com/?page=simscan > > > > Docs at http://www.qmailwiki.org/ > > > > We specifically wrote simscan to replace qmail-scanner because > > of high loads. We've seen systems with loads of 20 drop below 1. > > The problem is with loading perl (qmail-scanner) instead of a > > small C program (simscan). We run simscan with the QMAILQUEUE > > patch to reject viruses at the smtp level. > > I will give it try. > Just to understand the big picture here: is there any known performance > issue in clamav for linux using sparc? > Or any other option/lib I should be worried about? No problems that I know about.
I've setup clamav/simscan/qmail on about 3 solaris machines and have seen no problems. The only issue we had was having clamd write the log file to /dev/stdout so we could pipe the output through multilog. Solaris fails on opening /dev/stdout in append mode, so we changed the clamav code to open it in write mode. Works like a charm. _______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-devel.html
