On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 10:15:39AM -0500, Daniel T. Staal wrote: > > I don't know if that is accurate. clamd seems completely CPU bound. I > > also don't know why additional threads would use a lot of extra memory, > > as clamd seems to just stream data from the files it is caching. > > > > And I don't see it in practice either. clamd with MaxThreads uses about > > 50MB resident, and clamd with MaxThreads of 10 is about 48MB. The > > difference is so small, that is probably just local thread storage.
Are you actually using all threads? They might only take up memory (or be present at all) if they are being used. My recommendation would be to set it to the maximum amount of parallel scans that you expect that you need. If you're only ever doing filesystem scans from cron, you will only need 1 thread. If you're doing offline (after smtp) scanning of email, you need very few threads, like 1 or 2. If you're doing online scanning (during the smtp phase), you need the same order of threads as you have sendmail (or postfix, or...) processes running. Not the same (sendmail runs much longer than clamav), but usually something like 20%. Don't worry too much about taskswitching. -- Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !! Disclamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinitely to allow verification of the logs. !! _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
