<div dir="ltr"><p>Dear Sebastian,</p>
<p>sorry for the late reply<br>
</p>
<p>most likely, the daemon is swapped out. We are talking about a memory
restricted system with the obligation to run daily scans on the file
system. It seems that running clamdscan with the daemon is still faster
while scanning the major part of the file system, compared to running
clamscan, even if the daemon uses some swap space.</p>
<p>Obviously, this setup is not optimal. I looked into running clamdscan
against a service on a different system in the same network, but this
seems not to be supported out of the box.<br>
</p>
<p>Would it hurt to increase the timeout or make it adjustable?<br>
</p>
<p>Dominik</p>
</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mi., 20. Jan. 2021 um 08:05 Uhr schrieb Dominik Reusser <<a href="mailto:dr896543@gmail.com">dr896543@gmail.com</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">
<div>
<p><br>
</p><p><br>
</p>
<p>Dear Sebastian,</p>
<p>most likely, the daemon is swapped out. We are talking about a
memory restricted system with the obligation to run daily scans on
the file system. It seems that running clamdscan with the daemon
is still faster while scanning the major part of the file system,
compared to running clamscan, even if the daemon uses some swap
space.</p>
<p>Obviously, this setup is not optimal. I looked into running clamdscan against a service on a
different system in the same network, but this seems not to be supported
out of the box.
</p>
<p>Would it hurt to increase the timeout or make it adjustable?</p><p>Dominik<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>