ClamWin Free Antivirus Forum Index
ClamWin Free Antivirus
Support and Discussion Forums
Reply to topic
alch
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 1748
Reply with quote
I made some adjustments that should hopefully address the clamtray.exe cpu issue. Please download test thoroughly ands post back the reults. The beta is here:

http://files.clamwin.com/clamwin-0.88.1.2-setup.exe
Thanks
View user's profileSend private message
hcremer


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Reply with quote
Hi alch,

first of all thank you very much for the great job you are doing!

I just downloaded the 0.88.1.2.exe, uninstalled the previous version (with windows uninstaller) and rebooted the machine.
Then installed the new version and started a manual scan.

Until now (observed it +/- 30 min) , clamscan.exe is consuming beween 0 and 98 % cpu and usually switches between 20 and 85 %.
Clamtray.exe is 0% cpu or very low and clamwin.exe is between 0 and 5% cpu.

As the manual scan has not finished yet, I can't tell you anything about time consumption and scan results.

I will try to get into the office tomorrow morning and observe what the scheduled scans are doing and post the results here.
View user's profileSend private message
Newer ClamAV 0.88.1.2 test result
secretclam


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 16
Reply with quote
Ran on two machines:

1st machine almost identical time +/- 2% or so.
2nd machine see below:

-------- cut --------

Scan started: Mon Apr 24 14:16:57 2006


-- summary --
Known viruses: 53063
Engine version: 0.88.1
Scanned directories: 2030
Scanned files: 22130
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 4157.41 MB
Time: 3133.390 sec (52 m 13 s)
--------------------------------------
Scan started: Fri Apr 28 03:49:04 2006


-- summary --
Known viruses: 53123
Engine version: 0.88.1
Scanned directories: 2034
Scanned files: 21733
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 4186.46 MB
Time: 2805.100 sec (46 m 45 s)

-------- cut --------

Maybe 10% faster?

An error message quickly showed right as the scan ended on both machines. It said something about not able to create what looked like a temporary file path or filename.
View user's profileSend private message
Re: Newer ClamAV 0.88.1.2 test result
alch
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 1748
Reply with quote
secretclam wrote:
Ran on two machines:

1st machine almost identical time +/- 2% or so.
2nd machine see below:



could you please clarify what versions these tests were done with?
View user's profileSend private message
hcremer


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Reply with quote
Hi alch,

the new version works fine for me. The scheduled scans were finshed in +/- 2 hours for the c:\-drive and +/- 3 hours for the e:\-drive. I rescheduled the 3am scan to 8 pm to avoid conflicts with the 4 am. Like this it works without slowing down the system at user working times.

Thanks again for the work done and have a great long weekend!
View user's profileSend private message
egciuffo


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
i think the new version 0.88.1.2 works well, at least for a GUI scan with Clamwin.exe:
10 GB ~4,5 hour (with cygwin version 0.88.1 on the laptop and LOW priority)
10 GB ~3 hours (with version 0.88.1.2 on the laptop and LOW priority)

for scheduled scans i have to see, but i guess it will be ok.
View user's profileSend private message
alch
Site Admin

Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 1748
Reply with quote
Quote:
for scheduled scans i have to see, but i guess it will be ok.

Please test scheduled scans too as there was a major bottleneck which I hopefully addressed. I will then release the updated version to general public.
View user's profileSend private message
egciuffo


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Reply with quote
it works great now with 0.88.2.1.
thank you very much! great work!
View user's profileSend private message
Clamwin 0.88.1: Clamtray uses 100% CPU after scheduled scan
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 2 of 2  

  
  
 Reply to topic