On Tuesday 26 October 2004 09:52, Trog shaped the electrons to say:
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 03:45, Eric Worthy wrote:
This is a vanilla install off qmailrocks.org site.
This may be your problem. I seem to remember they are guilty of doing very bad things to the clamav install, like linking clamdscan to clamscan.
Why the hell would they want to suggest that?? This would totally limit the ability to scale. Are there any docs suggesting what the 'benefits' are?
When I took over here at my current job, qmailscanner was setup to use clamscan instead of clamdscan. We send/receive over a million mails a day and the cpus were sitting at 100% constantly. The first thing i did was to change to clamdscan and cpu usage dropped unbelievably.
First off, the QMR install is for people who are new to this type of setup and is NOT meant to be used in a full large volume production environment. If you are using the QMR setup in this type of enviroment its your own damn fault. The suggested linking of clamdscan to clamscan was done to eliminate usage of clamd which at the time (i believe around ver 0.6 or so) there were some serious stbility issues. To avoid these issues the site author just suggested the linking. This is why i suggested that the instructions are out of date. Yes the site was updated recently, but no, this text was not changed.
-Jim _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
