I have spent the last few days running scheduled scans with the various versions. Since the scans were conducted over a period of a few days, the amount of data scanned fluctuates a bit. Scanning with 0.88 took about 3.6 hours. A scan using 0.88.1 (Cygwin) took the same amount of time. After that I scanned with 0.88.1 again. The scheduled scan ran through the night and it was still running in the morning when I checked it (at about 8.5 hours into the scan). I noticed that ClamTray.exe was using up the CPU and had used significantly more of the CPU than clamscan.exe, so I set ClamTray.exe's priority to "Below Normal" and set clamscan.exe up to "Normal". This allowed the scan to actually finish with a total run time of about 9.2 hours. It seems that the reason the scans couldn't finish in one night was because ClamTray.exe was using up the CPU (as has been addressed in another thread and already fixed by alch).

Last night I ran a scheduled scan using 0.88.1.2 which took about 4 hours. While it is good news that the scanning is now back to the "normal" time (comparing with 0.88 and 0.88.1-cygwin), unfortunately there seems to be no speed increase from the removal of the cygwin layer, as other users have experienced.

The full logs from these four scans are posted below. I will try running a scheduled scan tonight using the new 0.88.2.1 version and post the result.

Here's my computer specs:
Athlon 64 3200+ (Venice core)
1GB DDR 400 (Kingston)
Seagate 200GB 7200 SATA
ASUS A8N5X (Nvidia Nforce4 drivers)

- phil

BTW, thanks for all the help/work alch - it's appreciated!

Scanning with 0.88.2.1 results in similar scan times (around 4 hours on my system).

Good work on the latest 0.88.2(.1) release of Clamwin!

It doesn't seem to be quite as fast as 0.88, but it is noticeably faster than 88.1

For the record, on the same AMD sempron I got the following nominal scan rates:

0.88: ~~ 56 MB/minute
0.88.1: ~~ 43 MB/minute
0.88.2.1: ~~ 49 MB/minute

So that makes 0.88.2.1 a 14% speed improvement over 88.1, but still about 11% slower than 0.88.

Just benchmarked the new release (0.88.2.1).
I also did some calculations on all results, taking 0.88 as a reference to compare speeds:
(apologies for the messy layout, don't know how to put a table in bb code)



It actually seems that Clamwin is really gaining speed, although the newer versions take slightly longer to run (they scan more megabytes, so they should be safer).