On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 09:49:42PM -0400, Paul Kosinski wrote:
> 3. With regard to reducing the delay when a new signature set is loaded:
>
> I don't know the internals of ClamAV, but it seems that it ought to be
> possible to restructure it to overlap (in a different thread) the
> loading of
Yes to all of those concerns, Paul.
As far as the reduced signature sets, it’s possible to run multiple instances
on the same box in order to speed each individual reload. For example, you
could have one instance that only loads the ClamAV databases and only reloads a
couple of times a day and
1. With regard to separating signature sets:
Isn't there always a danger that scanning with a reduced signature set
misses malware that was not "expected" in a particular context? For
example, except in highly restrictive work environments, people tend to
visit all sorts of Web sites, any of
t; Think of it more as an expectation-setting & capacity-planning exercise
>
> Thanks very much, Len
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:10 AM
> To: ClamAV users ML; Len Sanschargrin
>
I ran it on dozens of enterprise systems, real and virtual, under RHEL and
Oracle Linux. As a mail scanner running on demand it was never a great issue
regarding performance as they were dedicated servers. But we found that when
scanning file systems for compliance it would thrash the disk
Hi there,
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Len Sanschargrin wrote:
... I'm looking for any testing or stats on potential overhead can
be associated with running ClamAV. Even just anecdotal observations
can help us to set expectations and of course any additional
guidance is appreciated!
Firstly, as
capacity-planning exercise
Thanks very much, Len
-Original Message-
From: Reindl Harald [mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:10 AM
To: ClamAV users ML; Len Sanschargrin
Subject: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL & Solaris
you
Our hosts have asked us to be civil and friendly in our discussions here. If
you can't uphold such principles, then perhaps you should look elsewhere for
answer.
As has already been stated, you really haven't given us much to go on. There
are lots of configuration options and hardware factors
s about real-life
>>>>> experiences with the product and the overhead observed. Of course we'll
>>>>> do our own testing but the earlier we know, the better. We also know some
>>>>> features will cost more in terms of overhead than others, so I'm looking
own testing but the earlier we know, the better. We also know some
>>>> features will cost more in terms of overhead than others, so I'm looking
>>>> for real experiences around which features are more expensive, etc..
>>>>
>>>> Thanks very m
gt; >> features will cost more in terms of overhead than others, so I'm looking
> >> for real experiences around which features are more expensive, etc..
> >>
> >> Thanks very much, Len
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >>
on RHEL &
>>> Solaris
>>>
>>> It plays on RHEL and Solaris a lot better than Symantec.
>>> You should get your Solaris builds from www.unixpackages.com.
>>>
>>> Regards, Scott
>>>
>>>> -Original Message
PM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL & Solaris
>
> What are you looking for? Performance complains? There is not.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/3Likl14.png
>
> ClamAV runs on this server and it's ok.
>
>
: 'ClamAV users ML' <clamav-users@lists.clamav.net>
> Subject: [External] Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL &
> Solaris
>
> Any relative numbers you can share?
>
> Thanks very much, Len Sanschargrin
>
>
> -Original Message
arch 16, 2018 3:47 PM
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL &
> Solaris
>
> It plays on RHEL and Solaris a lot better than Symantec.
> You should get your Solaris builds from www.unixpackages.com.
>
>
; Thanks very much, Len Sanschargrin
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: clamav-users [mailto:clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net] On
> Behalf Of SCOTT PACKARD
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 3:47 PM
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV perf
> -Original Message-
> From: clamav-users [mailto:clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net] On Behalf
> Of SCOTT PACKARD
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 3:47 PM
> To: ClamAV users ML
> Subject: Re: [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL & Solaris
>
> It
l Message-
>>> From: clamav-users [mailto:clamav-users-boun...@lists.clamav.net] On Behalf
>>> Of Len Sanschargrin
>>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 10:45 AM
>>> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
>>> Subject: [External] [clamav-users] ClamAV performance
argrin
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 10:45 AM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: [External] [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL
> & Solaris
>
> Hello, I have customer who is preparing to implement ClamAV on RHEL
> and Solaris. As the Per
To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
>> Subject: [External] [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL &
>> Solaris
>>
>> Hello, I have customer who is preparing to implement ClamAV on RHEL and
>> Solaris. As the Performance engineer, I'm looking for any testin
rch 16, 2018 10:45 AM
> To: clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> Subject: [External] [clamav-users] ClamAV performance overhead on RHEL &
> Solaris
>
> Hello, I have customer who is preparing to implement ClamAV on RHEL and
> Solaris. As the Performance engineer, I'm looking for a
Hello, I have customer who is preparing to implement ClamAV on RHEL and
Solaris. As the Performance engineer, I'm looking for any testing or stats
on potential overhead can be associated with running ClamAV. Even just
anecdotal observations can help us to set expectations and of course any
22 matches
Mail list logo
