Mailing List Archive: [clamav-users] Regarding ClamAV performance

Hi

In custom target, testing of clamAV (0.101.2) scanning set of
files/folders when RFS is from SD-MMC appears
same time taken (~13 mins) with(~1.8GB)/without swap memory under 1 GB RAM.
On comparison clamAV (0.101.2) with Ubuntu host (6 GB, 64 bits), time taken
is always quicker (~42 secs).

Following is log where time taken is almost same for scanning single file
or set of files on custom target (1 GB RAM)
running with Linux kernel 4.9, where root file system is from SD-MMC card.

Please let me know your valuable feedback.
----------------------------
clamscan ./
./.viminfo: OK

----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
Known viruses: 6123265
Engine version: 0.101.2
Scanned directories: 1
Scanned files: 1
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 0.00 MB
Data read: 0.00 MB (ratio 0.00:1)
Time: 774.923 sec (12 m 54 s)
---------------------------------------

clamscan ./*
./101/clamav-freshclam-0.101.2-r0.2.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101/clamav-0.101.2-r0.2.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101/clamav-libclamav-0.101.2-r0.2.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old/clamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old/clamav-lic-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old/clamav-libclamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old/clamav-freshclam-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old1/clamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old1/clamav-libclamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./101-old1/clamav-freshclam-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./99/clamav-lic-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./99/clamav-libclamav-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./99/clamav-freshclam-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
./99/clamav-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK

----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
Known viruses: 6123265
Engine version: 0.101.2
Scanned directories: 4
Scanned files: 14
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 7.56 MB
Data read: 3.74 MB (ratio 2.02:1)
Time: 791.395 sec (13 m 11 s)
-----------------------------------------
Thank & Regards
Manjunatha Srinivasan N

Does your platform have GNU time or strace? Try running clamscan with
'/usr/bin/time -v' and/or 'strace -c' and compare the output with that of
your Ubuntu host.

I wonder if loading the signature DB is causing excessive page faults on
the system without as much memory (time -v will tell you how many page
faults there were). Here's an example run from an Ubuntu VM:

$ /usr/bin/time -v clamscan requirements.txt
requirements.txt: OK

----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
Known viruses: 8990282
Engine version: 0.100.0
Scanned directories: 0
Scanned files: 1
Infected files: 0
Data scanned: 0.00 MB
Data read: 0.00 MB (ratio 0.00:1)
Time: 62.459 sec (1 m 2 s)
Command being timed: "clamscan requirements.txt"
User time (seconds): 35.13
System time (seconds): 27.24
Percent of CPU this job got: 99%
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 1:02.54
Average shared text size (kbytes): 0
Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0
Average stack size (kbytes): 0
Average total size (kbytes): 0
Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 1005616
Average resident set size (kbytes): 0
Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 0
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 251128
Voluntary context switches: 2
Involuntary context switches: 2220
Swaps: 0
File system inputs: 8
File system outputs: 8
Socket messages sent: 0
Socket messages received: 0
Signals delivered: 0
Page size (bytes): 4096
Exit status: 0

-Andrew

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:50 AM Narashimman Srinivasan <
msrinivasan@mvista.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> In custom target, testing of clamAV (0.101.2) scanning set of
> files/folders when RFS is from SD-MMC appears
> same time taken (~13 mins) with(~1.8GB)/without swap memory under 1 GB RAM.
> On comparison clamAV (0.101.2) with Ubuntu host (6 GB, 64 bits), time
> taken is always quicker (~42 secs).
>
> Following is log where time taken is almost same for scanning single file
> or set of files on custom target (1 GB RAM)
> running with Linux kernel 4.9, where root file system is from SD-MMC card.
>
> Please let me know your valuable feedback.
> ----------------------------
> clamscan ./
> ./.viminfo: OK
>
> ----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
> Known viruses: 6123265
> Engine version: 0.101.2
> Scanned directories: 1
> Scanned files: 1
> Infected files: 0
> Data scanned: 0.00 MB
> Data read: 0.00 MB (ratio 0.00:1)
> Time: 774.923 sec (12 m 54 s)
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
> clamscan ./*
> ./101/clamav-freshclam-0.101.2-r0.2.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101/clamav-0.101.2-r0.2.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101/clamav-libclamav-0.101.2-r0.2.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old/clamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old/clamav-lic-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old/clamav-libclamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old/clamav-freshclam-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old1/clamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old1/clamav-libclamav-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./101-old1/clamav-freshclam-0.101-r0.2.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./99/clamav-lic-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./99/clamav-libclamav-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./99/clamav-freshclam-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
> ./99/clamav-0.99.2-r0.1.cortexa9hf_neon.rpm: OK
>
> ----------- SCAN SUMMARY -----------
> Known viruses: 6123265
> Engine version: 0.101.2
> Scanned directories: 4
> Scanned files: 14
> Infected files: 0
> Data scanned: 7.56 MB
> Data read: 3.74 MB (ratio 2.02:1)
> Time: 791.395 sec (13 m 11 s)
> -----------------------------------------
> Thank & Regards
> Manjunatha Srinivasan N
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> clamav-users mailing list
> clamav-users@lists.clamav.net
> https://lists.clamav.net/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
>
>
> Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide:
> https://github.com/vrtadmin/clamav-faq
>
> http://www.clamav.net/contact.html#ml
>