[clamav-users] How to boost clamav? Reloading database results in a talking timeout?

[Reio Remma]

On 06/09/2019 12:00, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, Reio Remma via clamav-users wrote:
>>>> I guess many of us are just running too old hardware. :)
>>>>
>>>> Here's a comparison between my mail server and identical config
>>>> running in a VM.
>>>>
>>>> Sep  6 09:41:06 mail clamd[31441]: Reading databases from 
>>>> /var/lib/clamav
>>>> Sep  6 09:44:05 mail clamd[31441]: Database correctly reloaded 
>>>> (10741767 ...
>>>>
>>>> Sep  6 09:56:43 vm clamd[2108]: Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
>>>> Sep  6 09:57:17 vm clamd[2108]: Database correctly reloaded 
>>>> (10742128 ...
>
> Fri Sep  6 08:49:08 2019 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
> Fri Sep  6 08:50:18 2019 -> Database correctly reloaded (8830356 
> signatures)
> Fri Sep  6 09:48:25 2019 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
> Fri Sep  6 09:49:49 2019 -> Database correctly reloaded (8830677 
> signatures)
> Fri Sep  6 10:47:36 2019 -> Reading databases from /var/lib/clamav
> Fri Sep  6 10:48:53 2019 -> Database correctly reloaded (8830954 
> signatures)
>
> average ~1:20 on X3440 CPU (10 years old).
>
>> On 06/09/2019 11:31, G.W. Haywood wrote:
>>> That's very useful, thanks.  Can you compare the costs of running 
>>> them for us?
>
> On 06.09.19 11:54, Reio Remma via clamav-users wrote:
>> I suspect the i9-9900 is cheaper to actually run than the old 
>> whichever Core is in the mail server. :D
>
> I think that virtual/cloud server has to be cheaper than power usage 
> of the
> existing server (plus housing, if you pay for that one). 

(Un)fortunately, we're in a building with practically free electricity 
due to some management error.

Otherwise I would have made a case to upgrade the server long ago based 
on power usage alone. :)