Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?
From: David Candy (david_at_mvps.org)
Date: 04/29/04
- Next message: David Candy: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- Previous message: Dmitriy Kopnichev: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- In reply to: Phil Weldon: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- Next in thread: Dmitriy Kopnichev: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:07:20 +1000
NT 3.1, NT3.51, NT4, NT5, NT5.1
NT started at 3.1 cause windows was up to 3.1 at the time.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------- And the band played .... http://www.livejournal.com/users/aldon/74121.html "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message news:ky5kc.13971$eZ5.7137@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Sorry, another typo. The first sentenced should read "I use Windows 2000 > Professional and Windows 2000 Professional Server..." Windows 2000 > Professional is the second Windows NT based Microsoft operating system, > preceeding Windows 2000 XP. The two operating systems are similar, and the > "Windows XP Professional Resource Kit" should help answer your questions > about performance monitoring and analysis. Unfortunately the cost is about > $70 US, but it is THE book that should be provided as the manual with > Microsoft Windows XP Professional Operating system... it's just unbundled to > save the average user the extra money. > > -- > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom > For communication, > replace "at" with the 'at sign' > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." > replace "dot" with "." > > > "Dmitriy Kopnichev" <kopn@hotbox.ruDELETE> wrote in message > news:uHxQq0aLEHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > What is the 'Process Viewer' (Pviewer.exe)? > > What does "I use Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Professional" > > mean? > > "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message > > news:reWjc.16566$e4.10545@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > I use Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Professional, and I use > > the > > > 'Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Resource Kit', a 3 kilogram book > and > > > CD-ROM that is a good source of answers for such questions. I'm sure > the > > > 'Windows XP Professional Resource Kit' is just as good. The book I have > > has > > > 165 pages on monitoring and analyzing performance. > > > > > > There are about 20 columns selectable in 'Task Manager', and the > 'Process > > > Viewer' (Pviewer.exe) is also useful. > > > > > > Windows XP 'Help' should give information on how to use performance > > counters > > > for trouble shooting bottlenecks. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom > > > For communication, > > > replace "at" with the 'at sign' > > > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." > > > replace "dot" with "." > > > > > > > > > "Dmitriy Kopnichev" <kopn@hotbox.ruDELETE> wrote in message > > > news:uaGKd3SLEHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > > > What Columns to use to find out where the bottleneck is? How to know > by > > > > numbers in the Column where the bottleneck is? > > > > "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message > > > > news:cIOjc.16060$e4.4579@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > Sorry for the typo. The I/O bandwidth should be 1 Mbit per second, > > not > > > 1 > > > > > MByte per second. The Amdahl/Case Rule is a 'rule of thumb' like > > > 'Moore's > > > > > Law, and only approximate. A 'Northwood' 1.8 GHz Pentium might have > > > 2,400 > > > > > MIPS, indicating 2.4 GBytes memory and 2.4 GBits I/O bandwidth by > the > > > > > Amdahl/Case Rule. The I/O bandwidth for a 32-bit, 33 MHz PCI bus > > would > > > be > > > > > 32 X 33 MHz ~= 1 GBit/second. The I/O bandwidth for a 32-bit 66 MHz > X > > 8 > > > > AGP > > > > > bus would be ~= 16 GBit/second, but much of the AGP bus bandwidth is > > > > unused > > > > > for most applications. A 66 MHz 64-bit PCI bus is available on > server > > > > > motherboards and a faster replacement for the PCI bus is soon to > > appear > > > in > > > > > general motherboards; server applications approach the 1 MByte per > > MIPS > > > > > ratio, and for general workstation use, the 1 MByte per MIPS ratio > is > > > > > approached if the swap file is included. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you use the performance data available in 'Task Manager' > > > (select > > > > > 'Processes', 'View', 'Select Columns') to find out where your > > bottleneck > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom > > > > > For communication, > > > > > replace "at" with the 'at sign' > > > > > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." > > > > > replace "dot" with "." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:YRxjc.15038$e4.58@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > > The request might have something to do with CPU resources. What > > might > > > > not > > > > > > be noticed with a 3 GHz Pentium 4 in a workstation might be very > > > > noticable > > > > > > if the CPU can't keep up with disk bandwidth. Without knowing > that > > > keep > > > > > > piece of information... Amdahl/Case Rule: A balanced computer > > system > > > > > needs > > > > > > about 1 MByte of memory and 1 MByte per second of I/O bandwidth > per > > > MIPS > > > > > of > > > > > > CPU performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom > > > > > > For communication, > > > > > > replace "at" with the 'at sign' > > > > > > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." > > > > > > replace "dot" with "." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in > message > > > > > > news:Oh$p5iHLEHA.2660@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is a universal issue with Symantec > > Corporate--my > > > > > > clients > > > > > > > haven't run into it--so I suspect this is fixable. Turning off > > the > > > > scan > > > > > > > should be an absolute last resort, although reasonable for > > testing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Next message: David Candy: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- Previous message: Dmitriy Kopnichev: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- In reply to: Phil Weldon: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- Next in thread: Dmitriy Kopnichev: "Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|