|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > clamav-users archives|
On 04/24/2010 11:08 AM, jef moskot wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Török Edwin wrote:
>> Does Mimedefang run clamscan under ulimit? (or is mimedefang itself
>> constrained by some ulimits?)
> I doubled the MX_MAX_RSS and MX_MAX_AS arguments in the startup script,
> and it seems to have taken care of the problem (which I was able to
> recreate, see below).
What are these values btw?
> If 0.96 uses more memory than 0.95.3, then this would explain why the
> problem only occurred when upgrading to the new clam version.
I have some patches to reduce memory usage of LLVM in clamav, which will
probably be in 0.96.1.
>> ...'make test' didn't have much to say...
>> It is called 'make check'...
> Oops. Sorry about that.
> Here's the output of the --disable-llvm version:
> make check-TESTS
> PASS: check_clamav
> PASS: check_freshclam.sh
> PASS: check_sigtool.sh
> SKIP: check_unit_vg.sh
> PASS: check1_clamscan.sh
> PASS: check2_clamd.sh
> PASS: check3_clamd.sh
> PASS: check4_clamd.sh
> SKIP: check5_clamd_vg.sh
> SKIP: check6_clamd_vg.sh
> SKIP: check7_clamd_hg.sh
> SKIP: check8_clamd_hg.sh
> All 7 tests passed
> (5 tests were not run)
> So, does this mean I'm missing out on some functionality, or just that
> the work will be done less efficiently?
Looks good. It is not missing any functionality, it just runs a little
slower when executing bytecode.