Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 8 May 2003 22:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Tom Samplonius <>
To:        Troy Settle <>
Subject:   Re: Virus Scanning
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <000001c31590$a65c3300$>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

  Well, mfs is backed by swap, so an actual ram disk could be better (man

  You'd be much better of with a virus scanner that can scan into
archives.  There are no files to create.  Kasperksy can do this.  It will
likely be twice as fast as any virus scanner that requires unMIMEing and


On Thu, 8 May 2003, Troy Settle wrote:

> I'm trying to figure out the best approach to handle virus scanning on
> my new mail server.  The machine itself is a beast:
>   Dual Xeon 2.4GHZ (HT)
>   4GB RAM
>   U160 RAID1 (system)
>   U160 RAID5 (storage)
> Originally, I was thinking that handling the virus scanning on a memory
> file system would be best to keep disk IO to a minimum, however, I'm
> unable to demonstrate the mfs is any faster than a real disk, even when
> copying 200MB files.  This is probably due to softupdates.
> So, with softupdates enabled, is there any real disk IO if an email
> message (and it's attachments) are extracted, written, scanned, and
> deleted within a few hundred milliseconds?  Would there be any real
> advantage to performing these operations on a memory filesystem?
> TIA,
> --
>   Troy Settle
>   Pulaski Networks
>   540.994.4254 - 866.477.5638
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>