I built a new 4 cpu/1 gig ram qmail/vpopmail/qmailscanner/clamv
mail server. (Four (4) Pentium® III Xeon 700 MHz/ 1 MB Cache)
I put it in last Thursday with it running great, then
yesterday, about 6pm, the cpu usage went to near 100% with about 800
smtp transfers per hour.
This morning about 8am, t
Eric Worthy wrote:
I built a new 4 cpu/1 gig ram qmail/vpopmail/qmailscanner/clamv
mail server. (Four (4) Pentium® III Xeon 700 MHz/ 1 MB Cache)
I put it in last Thursday with it running great, then
yesterday, about 6pm, the cpu usage went to near 100% with about 800
smtp transfers per hour.
This m
* Eric Worthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20041026 07:02]: wrote:
> I built a new 4 cpu/1 gig ram qmail/vpopmail/qmailscanner/clamv
> mail server. (Four (4) Pentium® III Xeon 700 MHz/ 1 MB Cache)
> I put it in last Thursday with it running great, then
> yesterday, about 6pm, the cpu usage went to near 100
On Oct 25, 2004, at 23:05, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
I would suggest that you DisableDefaultScanOptions in clamd.conf
and tune values according to your system. My servers do slightly
more than 800 smtp transfers per hour and I found out that working
with the DisableDefaultScanOptions commented out
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.
-trog
signature.asc
Description: This is a d
* Doug Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20041026 10:30]: wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 23:05, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
> >I would suggest that you DisableDefaultScanOptions in clamd.conf
> >and tune values according to your system. My servers do slightly
> >more than 800 smtp transfers per hour a
ect: Re: [Clamav-users] Performance Help - 100% cpu usage
> * Eric Worthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20041026 07:02]: wrote:
> > I built a new 4 cpu/1 gig ram qmail/vpopmail/qmailscanner/clamv
> > mail server. (Four (4) Pentium® III Xeon 700 MHz/ 1 MB Cache)
> > I pu
Trog wrote:
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.
-trog
the QMR install doesnt really do ve
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:20, Jim Maul wrote:
> Trog wrote:
> > 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,
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:41, Niek wrote:
> On 10/26/2004 3:33 PM +0200, Trog wrote:
> > So, I was correct, QMR completely screws up the ClamAV installation for
> > no reason other than ignorance and gross stupidity.
> >
> > It also tells it's misguided users to run freshclam on-the-hour. Another
>
Trog wrote:
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 14:41, Niek wrote:
On 10/26/2004 3:33 PM +0200, Trog wrote:
So, I was correct, QMR completely screws up the ClamAV installation for
no reason other than ignorance and gross stupidity.
It also tells it's misguided users to run freshclam on-the-hour. Another
bad deci
On 10/26/2004 3:33 PM +0200, Trog wrote:
So, I was correct, QMR completely screws up the ClamAV installation for
no reason other than ignorance and gross stupidity.
It also tells it's misguided users to run freshclam on-the-hour. Another
bad decision.
So, don't follow anything they say about instal
On Monday 25 October 2004 23:17, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> Try 0.80. If it's not in debian's apt list, build it manually from source.
You could also get it from backports.org:
http://www.backports.org/package.php?search=clamav
Regards
Gerardo Reynoso
_
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 15:01, Jim Maul wrote:
> Keep in mind while i agree the instructions are a little messed up for
> the current versions of the software it uses, the instructions are the
> way they are to correct problems and certain small errors that occured
> in older versions of the sofw
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Eric Worthy wrote:
>
> Anyone have any advice on what I could be doing wrong or how to improve
> the performance of the scanning?
We always get a great performance boost in software by adding
-march=(yourcpuhere) -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -static to the build lines.
If you
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Niek wrote:
> QMR delivers the community with the open source equivelant of
> 'next, next, next, next, next, next, finish' installations.
Is this a good thing ?
Seriously. My pet peve with Windows installs is starting a 1 hour install,
going to lunch, comming back, and fi
Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Niek wrote:
QMR delivers the community with the open source equivelant of
'next, next, next, next, next, next, finish' installations.
Is this a good thing ?
Seriously. My pet peve with Windows installs is starting a 1 hour install,
going to
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 linkin
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 16:56, Trog shaped the electrons to say:
> On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 15:01, Jim Maul wrote:
> > Keep in mind while i agree the instructions are a little messed up for
> > the current versions of the software it uses, the instructions are the
> > way they are to correct proble
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 16:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] shaped the electrons to
say:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Eric Worthy wrote:
> > Anyone have any advice on what I could be doing wrong or how to improve
> > the performance of the scanning?
>
> We always get a great performance boost in software by add
Scott Ryan wrote:
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
Scott Ryan wrote:
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 16:56, Trog shaped the electrons to say:
On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 15:01, Jim Maul wrote:
Keep in mind while i agree the instructions are a little messed up for
the current versions of the software it uses, the instructions are the
way they are to correct pr
Jim Maul wrote:
> > 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
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 17:57, Jim Maul shaped the electrons to say:
> Scott Ryan wrote:
> > 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 p
Scott Ryan wrote:
What are we arguing about here? I just know in my experience that you are
seriously shooting yourself in the foot by using clamscan to scan all mails.
Trog's suggestion of modifying qmail-scanner (if you really want to create the
link) sounds like the sensible solution to those
> Scott Ryan wrote:
>
>
>>
>> What are we arguing about here? I just know in my experience that you
>> are
>> seriously shooting yourself in the foot by using clamscan to scan all
>> mails.
>> Trog's suggestion of modifying qmail-scanner (if you really want to
>> create the
>> link) sounds like th
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Jim Maul wrote:
> Im simply arguing the fact that someone has spent a lot of their time to
> help out the community by creating the QMR setup instructions[.]
Jim is right here. Without the community we wouldn't be where we are.
If anything, QMR has taught us something: c
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Scott Ryan wrote:
> > You can get some mileage by putting your MTA's temp dir on a shmfs/tmpvs or
> > other type of VM filesystem if you're on a different OS to reduce the disk
> > i/o cycles. By freeing I/O cycles, the cpus can do more *real* work and
> > not wait precious cy
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:01:24AM -0400, Jim Maul said:
> Keep in mind while i agree the instructions are a little messed up for
> the current versions of the software it uses, the instructions are the
> way they are to correct problems and certain small errors that occured
> in older versions
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:56:20PM +0100, Trog wrote:
> You don't think it's rude to break other peoples software, for which we
> then have to deal with the resulting mess, as witnessed by this thread?
Indeed. We now have two mailing-lists (clamav and Qmail-Scanner) where
people who followed this
Jason Haar wrote:
I am now going to figure out a way that the installation of Qmail-Scanner
will *ignore* the presense of clamdscan if its actually clamscan - that is
really too gross to allow to continue.
The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
clamscan the same pro
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 18:47, Jim Maul shaped the electrons to say:
> Scott Ryan wrote:
>
>
>
> > What are we arguing about here? I just know in my experience that you are
> > seriously shooting yourself in the foot by using clamscan to scan all
> > mails. Trog's suggestion of modifying qmail-
On Oct 26, 2004, at 4:45 AM, Eric Worthy wrote:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1290 qscand 15 0 57368 56m 696 R 50.8 5.6 172:29.51 clamdscan
25135 qscand 14 0 57368 56m 696 R 50.2 5.6 187:57.60 clamdscan
4980 qscand 15 0 57368 46m 696 R 50.2 4.6 167:42.45 clamdscan
30917 qsca
James Lick wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
I am now going to figure out a way that the installation of
Qmail-Scanner
will *ignore* the presense of clamdscan if its actually clamscan -
that is
really too gross to allow to continue.
The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
It wouldn't be necessary to make clamscan and clamdscan the same program
in this case. One could have clamscan check to see if it was invoked as
clamdscan and if so refuse to run. Yes, it should be up to the end user
to not screw up his own system, but this one issue has caused enough
grief h
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:07:20 +0800
James Lick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wouldn't be necessary to make clamscan and clamdscan the same
> program
> in this case. One could have clamscan check to see if it was invoked
> as
> clamdscan and if so refuse to run. Yes, it should be up to the end
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
> > clamscan the same program and then acting differently depending on
> > which name is run. This is similiar to how gzip and gunzip are
This has been brought up before and I am surf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > > The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
> > > clamscan the same program and then acting differently depending on
> > > which name is run. This is similiar to how gzip and gunzip are
>
> This ha
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Matt wrote:
> There are ways to monitor clamd, and run clamscan if clamd is
> unavailable, without expecting the software itself to do it. Clam is
> fine as it is. The fault tolerance should be built around the software,
> not into it.
>
> Not meaning to be too blunt about thi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh, I completely agree, that's my job. But if clam has stability
> issues, that needs to be addressed in clam. clamd->clamscan failover
> code would be short and sweet and the addition to clamdscan would be
> minimal compared to the cost of a complete code audit for cl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
clamscan the same program and then acting differently depending on
which name is run. This is similiar to how gzip and gunzip are
This has been brought up before
James Lick wrote:
The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
clamscan the same program and then acting differently depending on which
name is run.
Why? It's not a problem with clamav but a problem with broken
instructions.
---
Lars Hansson
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 00:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > > The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and
> > > clamscan the same program and then acting differently depending on
> > > which name is run. This is similiar to how gzip
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Trog wrote:
> > Any thoughts on how this should be accomplished?
>
> I may have missed it, but what are the details of your system, OS, etc.
>
> And, importantly, what exact version of libz (zlib) do you have
> installed?
Not really applicable, I'm not having stability issue
44 matches
Mail list logo
