Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition?

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

From: Phil Weldon (notdisclosed_at_example.com)
Date: 04/30/04

  • Next message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: Worm.SomeFool.P" 
    Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:30:08 GMT

    Perhaps you need to more thoroughly explain what it is that you are trying
    to do; certainly not moving a set of files from one folder to another;
    moving from one folder to another takes almost no time at all, nor are the
    files checked by NAV, because the data in the files themselves are not
    moved, the only changes are in the file management records on the volume,
    NOT in the data nor are the data repositioned, so NAV is not invoked.
    Moving files from one drive to another is a completely different operation.
    Additionaly, the 1 minute 57 second CPU usage for a NAV scan is with a
    Celeron 600 mobile, NOT a Pentium 4 1.8, for which a similar task would use
    more like 40 seconds. If your task is repetitive enough for 20 or 30
    seconds delay in transfering the same 7,000 files and 200 Mbytes of data a
    problem, then perhaps there should be a completely different way of doing
    it. If the transfer is to a CD-ROM, for example, then 20 or 30 seconds is
    hardly more than the time necessary to remove the recorded disk and insert a
    blank disk. 

    -- 
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:%23J%23ruhrLEHA.1272@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Yes. 7,714 files containing 182 Mbytes of data require only 1 minute 57
> seconds, but moving them to another folder on the same disk takes about 10
> seconds without the "Real-time protection"! This is 13 times slowing down!
> Also, what is the point to check files (while moving) which already have
> been checked?
> "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message
> news:6bskc.96$Hs1.41@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > Dmitriy, what I was trying to point out is that normal operation of a
> Norton
> > AntiVirus scan should not be a bottle neck; if  7,714 files contining
182
> > Mbytes of data require only 1 minute 57 seconds with a Celeron 600, then
> you
> > should consider looking for some other bottleneck; page file thrashing,
> for
> > example that could be analyzed with 'Task Manager'.
> >
> > What exactly is the task that requires 5 X the time with NAV as without
> NAV?
> > Your CPU should outperform the Celeron 600 mobile by about 3 times (if
> your
> > Pentium 4 is a Northwood.)  If you are just transfering from one drive
to
> > another within the same system, then 200 Mbytes of data in 7000 files
> would
> > take ~ 10 seconds without accounting for file overhead.  If that is the
> > case, then 40 seconds CPU time used for scanning would increase the task
> > time by five.  But that can't be the case, so the bottleneck is
elsewhere.
> >
> > -- 
> > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
> > For communication,
> > replace "at" with the 'at sign'
> > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
> > replace "dot" with "."
> >
> > "Dmitriy Kopnichev" <kopn@hotbox.ruDELETE> wrote in message
> > news:%23eBj$WnLEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > My system has 256 MB of (administrator said, faster) physical memory.
My
> > CPU
> > > is P4-1800. My hard drive is 7200 rpm.
> > > "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Guhkc.17868$e4.4038@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > Back to the performance hit.  How much physical memory does your
> system
> > > > have?
> > > >
> > > > Just for an experiment, and granted that most of the system, program
> and
> > > > data are very different from yours, I ran the following -
> > > >
> > > > Using Norton Antivirus 2003 (latest definitions and updates)
> > > > Dell notbook with 600 MHz mobile Celeron (256 Kbyte L2 cache)
> > > > 60 Gbyte 4200 rpm hard drive
> > > > 256 Mbyte SDRAM
> > > >
> > > > using the 'Framework  SDK'  folder in Microsoft Visual Studio .NET
> > (7,714
> > > > files, 1591 folders, 182 Mbytes Data)
> > > >
> > > > the CPU time utilized for scanning by NAVW32.exe was 1 minute 57
> > seconds,
> > > > and the bottle neck was the relatively slow hard drive.
> > > >
> > > > At least the dataset seems close to yours.  All this leads me to
think
> > you
> > > > have some performance bottle neck other than the processing time
> > required
> > > by
> > > > the NAV scan.
> > > > -- 
> > > > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
> > > > For communication,
> > > > replace "at" with the 'at sign'
> > > > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
> > > > replace "dot" with "."
> > > >
> > > > "Dmitriy Kopnichev" <kopn@hotbox.ruDELETE> wrote in message
> > > > news:eS4MPXeLEHA.268@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > > It's not possible.
> > > > > "Phil Weldon" <notdisclosed@example.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:FA5kc.13973$eZ5.11479@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > > > Is it possible for you at your level of system access to exclude
> > > certain
> > > > > > file types from scanning?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom
> > > > > > For communication,
> > > > > > replace "at" with the 'at sign'
> > > > > > replace "mindjump" with "mindspring."
> > > > > > replace "dot" with "."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
  • Next message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: Worm.SomeFool.P"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate
      ... moving from one folder to another takes almost no time at all, ... NOT in the data nor are the data repositioned, so NAV is not invoked. ... But that can't be the case, so the bottleneck is ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
    • Re: How to turn off the "File System Real-time Protection" in Symantec Antivirus Corporate
      ... moving from one folder to another takes almost no time at all, ... NOT in the data nor are the data repositioned, so NAV is not invoked. ... But that can't be the case, so the bottleneck is ...
      (microsoft.public.security.virus)
    • Re: SBS 2003 SP1 disk filling up.
      ... I planned on moving the Exchange databases tomorrow. ... Moving Data Folders for Windows Small Business Server 2003 ... How to Move the Client Programs Folder to Another Location in Windows Small ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: Low Disk Space on SBS 2003 SP2
      ... Server Managment - Advanced Management]. ... the format selected for these logfiles is "W3C Extended Log Files". ... We moved our Installer folder to the E:\ drive. ... Bonus - Prior to moving these folders, we had been getting memory allocation ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: Exchange Move Issues?
      ... The only aspect of this I disagree with, strongly, is moving the default ... Everyone should have room on their OS partition for a RAM+20MB (actually ... How to move Exchange databases and logs in Exchange Server 2003 ... Delete logs older than "date of your choice" from the system32 folder. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)