From: Carl Byington on
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:09:48 -0700, RICCARDO wrote:

> Yes, it's McAfee command line version.

cd $install_directory
../uvscan --decompress --version


After that, it will take a lot less time to startup. They are shipping
compressed files, and uvscan decompresses them every time it starts. The
above command forces it to save the decompressed version. Of course, you
need to run this in the script that fetches the daily updates.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMV6XXL6j7milTFsERAr22AJ4vFzrUpXRrCcWiJCWN4f/Wy8ILnQCbBEKE
pm6Q779D0eHZp052a9Rts2k=
=6TEL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: RICCARDO on
On 3 Ago, 07:15, Carl Byington <c...(a)five-ten-sg.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:09:48 -0700, RICCARDO wrote:
> > Yes, it's McAfee command line version.
>
> cd $install_directory
> ./uvscan --decompress --version
>
> After that, it will take a lot less time to startup. They are shipping
> compressed files, and uvscan decompresses them every time it starts. The
> above command forces it to save the decompressed version. Of course, you
> need to run this in the script that fetches the daily updates.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFMV6XXL6j7milTFsERAr22AJ4vFzrUpXRrCcWiJCWN4f/Wy8ILnQCbBEKE
> pm6Q779D0eHZp052a9Rts2k=
> =6TEL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

thank you very much but I knew this issue infact I tried 2 month ago
with no results, uvscan uses 100 % cpu
causing slow performance in mail server
From: ska on
RICCARDO wrote:
> with no results, uvscan uses 100 % cpu
> causing slow performance in mail server

hmm, when uvscan actually does its work, it should use 100% CPU :) or
at least as much as possible.

You could make a rough suggestion, if your server can cope with your
50 msgs / s:

put a message to /tmp/msg
Then
time ( for a in $(seq 1 50); do uvscan 'options' /tmp/msg ; done )
-vs.-
time uvscan 'options' $( for a in $(seq 1 50); do echo /tmp/msg ;
done )

First issues uvscan 50 times for one message (your current situation),
second issues uvscan one time for 50 messages (comparable to a
demonized scanner).

Because I guess that you cannot demonize uvscan, unless you buy
something; your server is simply to slow for this setup. Whether or
not ClamAV is suiteable for your setup, you have to test. If you ran
uvscan before, I would not expect performance issues with the same
amount of messages. But you have ask yourself (and those people you
run the mail server for), if you trust open software; well, if you
trust something, that does not look worth a penny in the balance
sheet.

Amavis can ask demons via socket, so if you get yourself a demonized
scanner, you can also drop command line tools completly. Actually I
found no config example in the net about "amavis + clamav", which uses
the command line interface of ClamAV.
Also note: There is point to use both ClamAV and uvscan in the view of
performance, unless you get lots of viruses handled by ClamAV, before
you run uvscan on them.

Regards, ska
From: Carl Byington on
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 01:30:04 -0700, ska wrote:

> Because I guess that you cannot demonize uvscan, unless you buy
> something; your server is simply to slow for this setup.

Another typical cause of poor performance is a setup that runs ALL
incoming mail (including spam) thru the virus scanner. The op might want
to switch to a setup where most of the spam is rejected without invoking
the virus scanner.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMWyzGL6j7milTFsERAorlAKCKNKkQXbXYRpzXtcXG45AIgebsmwCdG0pK
uRco6r2oLGlUZTHG8bW2NkE=
=YWHW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----