Plus; parallel  scans give a clue too. Next time compare one session
vs. 2 or more sessions . If both times are nearly equal then it's not
related
to cpu usage or any other machine related bottleneck, coz probably SA waits
for something -then timeout occurs? -

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:55 AM, John Hardin <jhar...@impsec.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:
>
>  On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 14:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as
>>>> the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are
>>>> the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind as a local caching
>>>> nameserver and it seems to be working correctly. I've just seen a ham
>>>> that has a scantime=172.2. Could there be something else on the system
>>>> that is affecting this?
>>>>
>>>> Any advice as to troubleshooting would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What version of SA, and are you current on updates (have you run
>>> sa-update
>>> recently)?
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to post an example message that exhibits the
>>> problem?
>>>
>>
>> Hi John, version is 3.3.0 and updates was last run at 5:11pm. Here is a
>> link to a spam that took 302s to process http://ez-files.net/445403
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> ClamAV took almost a minute and a half to scan that message.
>
> All of the steps seem slow. I'd suggest that it isn't any particular bad
> rule, so much as the system appears overloaded.
>
>
>  Awhile ago I logged out and logged back in again, I no longer am seeing
>> the above and scan times have decreased considerably,
>> ham - scantime=5.7
>> and for a spam that just came in
>> scantime=1.6
>>
>> Things seem back to normal, for now, though I'm not sure how long
>> they'll last. Any idea what could be causing the above?
>>
>
> That's odd. Are you running in an X session or character? Was there some
> other process bogging the system or taking up lots of memory such that it
> was swapping, which got killed when you logged out?
>
>
>

Reply via email to