You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Chris <cp...@embarqmail.com> on 2010/04/22 01:44:29 UTC
Reducing scan time
I've posted two files below, one is the time output for a spam and one
for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan times have become
slower and slower. For instance stats from last night below. Anyone with
any ideas on how to speed things up?
Email: 62 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -16.94 AvgScanTime: 21.25 sec
Spam: 17 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 35.71 AvgScanTime: 23.12 sec
Ham: 45 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -36.82 AvgScanTime: 20.54 sec
For instance my scan times about two weeks ago were:
Email: 58 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -12.38 AvgScanTime: 11.36 sec
Spam: 16 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 85.06 AvgScanTime: 8.52 sec
Ham: 42 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -49.50 AvgScanTime: 12.45 sec
Spam
http://pastebin.com/fhd3XwHp
Ham
http://pastebin.com/jbSD894i
Any advice would be appreciated.
Chris
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
Re: Reducing scan time
Posted by Lee Dilkie <Le...@dilkie.com>.
Chris,
Do you use sa-compile? I found that made a tremendous difference for me.
-lee
Chris wrote:
> I've posted two files below, one is the time output for a spam and one
> for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan times have become
> slower and slower. For instance stats from last night below. Anyone with
> any ideas on how to speed things up?
>
> Email: 62 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -16.94 AvgScanTime: 21.25 sec
> Spam: 17 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 35.71 AvgScanTime: 23.12 sec
> Ham: 45 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -36.82 AvgScanTime: 20.54 sec
>
> For instance my scan times about two weeks ago were:
>
> Email: 58 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -12.38 AvgScanTime: 11.36 sec
> Spam: 16 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 85.06 AvgScanTime: 8.52 sec
> Ham: 42 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -49.50 AvgScanTime: 12.45 sec
>
> Spam
> http://pastebin.com/fhd3XwHp
>
> Ham
> http://pastebin.com/jbSD894i
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Chris
>
>
RE: Reducing scan time
Posted by Chris <cp...@embarqmail.com>.
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 08:44 -0400, Kaleb Hosie wrote:
> Our scan time use to be much longer and it was because of clamav. I realized that I was scanning with clamscan and not clamdscan.
>
> The clamdscan uses the daemon that's already loaded, so it's not loading the virus database everytime.
>
> I'm not entirely sure whether that will help, but I know it helped us.
>
>
> Kaleb
This is on my home pc, no mail server involved. I'm using the clamav
plugin.
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
RE: Reducing scan time
Posted by Kaleb Hosie <kh...@spectraaluminum.com>.
> On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 02:05 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 22 April 2010 00:44, Chris <cp...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > I've posted two files below, one is the time output
> for a spam
> > and one
> > for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan
> times have
> > become
> > slower and slower. For instance stats from last night below.
> > Anyone with
> > any ideas on how to speed things up?
> >
> > Email: 62 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -16.94
> AvgScanTime:
> > 21.25 sec
> > Spam: 17 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 35.71
> AvgScanTime:
> > 23.12 sec
> > Ham: 45 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -36.82
> AvgScanTime:
> > 20.54 sec
> >
> > For instance my scan times about two weeks ago were:
> >
> > Email: 58 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -12.38
> AvgScanTime:
> > 11.36 sec
> > Spam: 16 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 85.06
> > AvgScanTime: 8.52 sec
> > Ham: 42 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -49.50
> AvgScanTime:
> > 12.45 sec
> >
> > Spam
> > http://pastebin.com/fhd3XwHp
> >
> > Ham
> > http://pastebin.com/jbSD894i
> >
> > Any advice would be appreciated.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
> >
> >
> > What version of SA and what rules (extra or otherwise) are you
> > running?
>
> 3.3.0
> Standard rulesets plus:
>
> http://pastebin.com/UK68S0L4
>
> >
> > Anything else on the box in question slower?
>
> Clam was running really slow and sucking a bunch of memory
> however, the problem there was found to be that I had a
> mail.cvd and main.cld db, I removed the .cld file and it
> seemed to speed up somewhat.
> >
> > you run a local caching nameserver on the SA box?
>
> Yes, named is running
>
> > You run sa-update frequently?
>
> Yes, every four hours
> >
> > Does a debug show any obvious place where it's slow?
> >
> dbg: async: timing: 3.375 . dns:A:3.169.13.200.ix.dnsbl.manitu.net.
>
> See http://pastebin.com/7upp4BCp
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
>
>
Our scan time use to be much longer and it was because of clamav. I realized that I was scanning with clamscan and not clamdscan.
The clamdscan uses the daemon that's already loaded, so it's not loading the virus database everytime.
I'm not entirely sure whether that will help, but I know it helped us.
Kaleb
Re: Reducing scan time
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On tor 22 apr 2010 04:21:40 CEST, Chris wrote
> Clam was running really slow and sucking a bunch of memory however, the
> problem there was found to be that I had a mail.cvd and main.cld db, I
> removed the .cld file and it seemed to speed up somewhat.
this one is really a design bug in clamav when version update comes
the tarball have db files put in clamav lib for updateing, wow
freshclam did not work before :(
2 ways to fix:
make a bug on https://wwws.clamav.net/bugzilla/ on this one so db
files is not in the source code tarball, seperate them is fine so save
bandwidth for upgrading
or make the arch maintainers not install the db files when update
version, just install when its first time install
--
xpoint http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Re: Reducing scan time
Posted by Chris <cp...@embarqmail.com>.
On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 02:05 +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
>
> On 22 April 2010 00:44, Chris <cp...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> I've posted two files below, one is the time output for a spam
> and one
> for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan times have
> become
> slower and slower. For instance stats from last night below.
> Anyone with
> any ideas on how to speed things up?
>
> Email: 62 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -16.94 AvgScanTime:
> 21.25 sec
> Spam: 17 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 35.71 AvgScanTime:
> 23.12 sec
> Ham: 45 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -36.82 AvgScanTime:
> 20.54 sec
>
> For instance my scan times about two weeks ago were:
>
> Email: 58 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -12.38 AvgScanTime:
> 11.36 sec
> Spam: 16 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 85.06
> AvgScanTime: 8.52 sec
> Ham: 42 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -49.50 AvgScanTime:
> 12.45 sec
>
> Spam
> http://pastebin.com/fhd3XwHp
>
> Ham
> http://pastebin.com/jbSD894i
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
>
>
> What version of SA and what rules (extra or otherwise) are you
> running?
3.3.0
Standard rulesets plus:
http://pastebin.com/UK68S0L4
>
> Anything else on the box in question slower?
Clam was running really slow and sucking a bunch of memory however, the
problem there was found to be that I had a mail.cvd and main.cld db, I
removed the .cld file and it seemed to speed up somewhat.
>
> you run a local caching nameserver on the SA box?
Yes, named is running
> You run sa-update frequently?
Yes, every four hours
>
> Does a debug show any obvious place where it's slow?
>
dbg: async: timing: 3.375 . dns:A:3.169.13.200.ix.dnsbl.manitu.net.
See http://pastebin.com/7upp4BCp
--
KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
Re: Reducing scan time
Posted by Martin Hepworth <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 22 April 2010 00:44, Chris <cp...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> I've posted two files below, one is the time output for a spam and one
> for ham. Seems like over the past few weeks SA scan times have become
> slower and slower. For instance stats from last night below. Anyone with
> any ideas on how to speed things up?
>
> Email: 62 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -16.94 AvgScanTime: 21.25 sec
> Spam: 17 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 35.71 AvgScanTime: 23.12 sec
> Ham: 45 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -36.82 AvgScanTime: 20.54 sec
>
> For instance my scan times about two weeks ago were:
>
> Email: 58 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -12.38 AvgScanTime: 11.36 sec
> Spam: 16 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: 85.06 AvgScanTime: 8.52 sec
> Ham: 42 Autolearn: 0 AvgScore: -49.50 AvgScanTime: 12.45 sec
>
> Spam
> http://pastebin.com/fhd3XwHp
>
> Ham
> http://pastebin.com/jbSD894i
>
> Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> KeyID 0xE372A7DA98E6705C
>
>
What version of SA and what rules (extra or otherwise) are you running?
Anything else on the box in question slower?
you run a local caching nameserver on the SA box?
You run sa-update frequently?
Does a debug show any obvious place where it's slow?
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK