Andreas Metzler wrote: > On 2009-02-22 W B Hacker <[email protected]> wrote: >> Andreas Metzler wrote: > [...] >>> Perhaps you had a faster machine or you had upgraded to the non-buggy >>> clamav version before the signature files got big enough to cause >>> trouble. > [...] > >> Mixed: > >> Oldest box is running FreeBSD 4.11 STABLE, has ClamAV 0.88.2 >> Was a VIA C3 800MHz 'til uprated to a VIA C7 1.5 GHz last night. > [...] > > Ok. Strange. ;-) I could continue guessing (old clamav has no support > for $no-that-old-feature that causes slowdown) but that rather > pointless. > cu andreas >
I'll have to plead ignorance of Linux (presuming that is your environment), but had ClamAV *ever* given me such fits, I'd have used something else. (DID run a server-licensed Kaspersky AV at one time...) My HKG bandwidth is certainly faster than SOHO/SME non-data-center, but nowhere near what we had in the Zurich Data Centre. So ... now you've got me wondering if I dare upgrade ClamAV ... ;-) .. the only other open questions are 'what ELSE is/was your box doing when trying to update ClamAV?', and 'Is there HDD head-positioner contention?' Most of ours sit at very low average load, and, while the ClamAV and Exim binaries sit in /usr/~, logs and queue in ~/var, the IMAP mailstore itself is usually on an entirely separate RAID array. So, too with the PostgreSQL DB. Cheap CPU, adequate RAM, but plenty of 'spindles', as it were. Bill -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
