Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: Digiti on April 01, 2008, 11:05:51 PM
-
I has been taking hours to comlete a quick scan on my WinXp Sp1 system. The cpu is at 100% as well. I never had this problem with the previous version. I have one gig ram on this machine and pentium 1.8 gig. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks.
-
At a guess I would say you are doing a Thorough scan, I don't know if you are also selecting Archives to be scanned ?
With 4.8 avast is doing a little more on the on-demand scan, the improved anti-spyware and anti-rootkit are integrated into the scan.
I see an increase in the duration of the scan from a little over 11 minutes to 15 and that is for a Standard scan without Archives. So if that is the kind of increase for me when only scanning 8GB of files, I can imagine what it might be for thorough and a lot of data being scanned (?), none of which to mention. Your system is broadly the same as mine no speed demon.
Archive (zip, rar, etc.) files are by their nature are inert, you need to extract the files and then you have to run them to be a threat. Long before that happens avast's Standard Shield should have scanned them and before an executable is run that is scanned. Thorough is also by its design very thorough and perhaps a little overkill for routine use, were a Standard scan without archives should be adequate.
I have only ever done a through scan with archives once shortly after installation just to ensure a clean start state, but with XP for example avast will do a boot-time scan after installation if you select it, this I believe will be quicker and reasonably effective. Like everything in life things are a compromise.
-
Something is definitely wrong with the length of my scans as well!! It took me 23 minutes to do a "Quick Scan" without checking archived files! Yesterday, it took me less than that to do a "Standard Scan", also without checking archived files!
What is going on?
Thanks!
-
Marshall, really, don't worry. Scanning speed depends of a lot of factors (computer temperature, other programs running...). If you're clean, keep cool 8)
-
Please see my new post, which also notes a discrepancy in the reporting of scan times!
I felt that I shouldn't have mentioned that here; I may have been wrong.
Thanks!
-
49 mins 18 secs for a quick scan of 15.5 gig of files with avast! 4.8 on my XP SP2 laptop. That's slow!
-
Good grief ... that's slower than my normal weekly ashquick.exe scan of all 5 drives on my system.
-
Is your ashquick.exe scan still the same ?
49 mins 18 secs for a quick scan of 15.5 gig of files with avast! 4.8 on my XP SP2 laptop. That's slow!
That is slow when my Standard scan no archives 8GB in 15 minutes if I doubled that for your data size (very rough guestimate) it is still quicker and it is for a Standard scan and not a Quick scan.
Is your scan with archives (wouldn't seem you would if doing a Quick scan) ?
-
I haven't tried an ashquick scan.
Scan is without archives.
-
I think David was asking about my ashquick scan. I had not run it with 4.8.1169 yet ...so running it now.
-
I haven't tried an ashquick scan.
Scan is without archives.
Yes the poorly directed question on ashquick.exe was for Alan.
Without archives makes the results even worse.
I shudder to ask you to try a Standard Scan without archives when you have a spare couple of hours if it is as slow as the quick scan.
-
I felt that I shouldn't have mentioned that here; I may have been wrong.
No problems... I've found your other thread... but here seems just a complain and a stress situation. I suggest the use of avast screensaver time scanning or running when you're not using the computer (at night). I have scheduled scans (with Pro versions) weekly.
-
Interestingly enough my ashquick.exe scan has just completed in its normal time range 33 minutes.
-
Could be we will have a lot more using ashQuick.exe is is, well, quick ;D
-
What is "ashquick.exe"? I only have the free version. Is this something only found in the paid version? Or does it go by a different name within the programs themselves?
From what I infer, you're referring to the "Thorough" Scan.
Thanks!
The Anxious One
-
What is "ashquick.exe"?
Check your avast folder and it will be there.
It is the quick scanner of avast.
-
Thanks!
-
We aren't referring to the Thorough scan which takes a very long time as it is at the opposite side of the scale to Quick.
The ashQuick.exe is in all versions of avast it is normally used to scan downloaded files or single files, etc. but some avast 4 Home users like Alan use it to scan their system in conjunction with windows task scheduler. The Home version doesn't have a scheduled scan function, so they use this as a workaround to do scheduled scans.
Check this work around out for general information - HOWTO: Scheduled Automatic Scans avast! Home Version! (http://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=3796.0)
There are some pros and cons and you shouldn't use this without knowing them.
-
MarshallO,
I am not only not a member of the avast team I am cheap too. avast does not provide the ability to schedule a scan in the Home version. So some of us use the features of the ashquick module to run a scheduled task to scan.
ashquick is the program that runs when you right click on a file in the explorer file listing and allows you the option to scan the file with avast. It is also the program that is often used in conjunction with downloaders to immediately scan a newly downloaded file.
-
Thanks again, guys!
TAO
-
49 mins 18 secs for a quick scan of 15.5 gig of files with avast! 4.8 on my XP SP2 laptop. That's slow!
Today I did a Standard scan on the same laptop. I got strange results. It took only 38 mins 13 secs and only scanned 10.6gb files. Figure that out! I haven't removed any programs or files except for cache cleaning with CCleaner.
-
Interesting, I have never tried a quick scan, only using the standard without archives, I will fire one off and see what that gives.
-
I just rescanned with quickscan, 41min 13sec, 15.6 gb of files scanned. Strange that a quick scan scans more files that standard scans ??? ::) Maybe that explains why quick scans take longer than standard scans ??? ::) :P
Maybe the ALWIL team mislabeled the scans ???
Why the inconsistant results ???
-
Interesting Just ran two scans, a Quick and a Standard, both without archives.
Quick Scan
Total Files/Folders scanned 39,632/3871
Scan duration 16min 11sec
Total scanned file size 7.3GB
Standard Scan
Total Files/Folders scanned 39,671/3872
Scan duration 15min 51sec
Total scanned file size 7.3GB
So they were almost identical, the Quick scan was 20sec slower, but the Standard scan only scanned 39 more files and 1 more folder. So to me it would appear it is a waste of time using the Quick scan when the Standard one is quicker and scans marginally more files.
Compare that with my previous Standard scans (pre 4.8) where the total scanned size was the same, but the duration was only just over 11mins, so an increase in my scan duration of about 41% on the Standard scan. I didn't take detailed files/folder counts, but the 39,000+ would also be correct.
-
What a case of tortoise (4.8) and hare (4.7)!
You only have to watch the scans to see something very wrong - a bit like watching paint dry.
I just ran Standard and Quick scans on the same system without archive scanning. One set with avast 4.8 and one set with avast 4.7
Standard 4.8_______________Standard 4.7_______________
42768/4978 7.8Gb 17:33 42031/4975 8.5Gb 11:25
Quick 4.8__________________Quick 4.7__________________
42099/4977 7.7Gb 17:28 16904/4975 5.5Gb 7:30
Observation: The avast 4.8 scans sit for a long period at folders that are very large and full of files in the exclusion list (Standard and Quick). The 4.7 scans zip right through those same folders.
-
but you shouldn't forget that there's also the rootkit scan which is done in 4.8 :o
-
onlysomeone,
you may have missed this quote from Vlk in another thread:
However, the rootkit scan should not take place if you're performing a "Quick" scan.
From monitoring the file activity it appears that neither standard scan nor quick scan is handling excluded files as efficiently as 4.7.
-
oh, sorry - i was too lazy to read... :-[
-
From monitoring the file activity it appears that neither standard scan nor quick scan is handling excluded files as efficiently as 4.7.
Well, is it only exception handling?
People are reporting slower scans even with no exceptions defined, aren't they?
-
but you shouldn't forget that there's also the rootkit scan which is done in 4.8
That does not really add up either - the avast standalone rootkit scan of my system only takes 70 seconds to complete.
I just did an ashquick scan of one of my disk drives (where almost every file on the drive is in the exclusion list)
ashquick (which is actually a thorough scan - but without rootkit scanning) took 00:03
an avast on demand Quick scan of exactly the same drive took 01:44 (considerably longer than the rootkit standalone complete run)
I think there is enough indication that a little problem exists here that I am confident the avast team will take care of quickly.
-
Vlk,
I have to guess that there are two factors at work but the basic cause is probably the rootkit scan
1) It is slowing scanning in general (see: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=34314.msg287318#msg287318 ) practically no exlusion apply to this folder
2) It is causing excessive (directory management I think) I/O on those folders that contain large numbers of excluded files. See the post above this.
By the way ... in support of both ... I have reported elsewhere here that there is no change in the timing of my weekly whole system ashquick scan between 4.7 and 4.8.
-
<snip>
you may have missed this quote from Vlk in another thread:
<snip>
However, the rootkit scan should not take place if you're performing a "Quick" scan.
<snip>
That makes things even more interesting, in the Quick scan there is no rootkit scan and the scan duration is even higher than the Standard scan where a rootkit scan takes place ???
I'm also surprised by that quote of Vlk as I have two event viewer entries (aswar failure) that would appear to coincide with both my Quick and Standard scan. So to me it appears that the rootkit scan is done (or attempted and failed on my FAT32 system) for the Quick scan ?
-
But how can you know if rootkit scanning was done, or not??
And, by other hand, how can you get a boot scan done?
-
1. Difficult as it doesn't announce it presence, I found it was being run because it was failing and error messages were in the windows event viewer, if it is working a) there won't be an event viewer entry, b) if you had a rootkit it would have a pop-up alert, c) if you are clean nothing would pop-up.
2. If you have XP, vista32bit or Win2k, you could enable a boot time scan. Right click the avast icon, select Start avast! Antivirus, Menu, 'Schedule boot-time scan...' Or see http://www.digitalred.com/avast-boot-time.php (http://www.digitalred.com/avast-boot-time.php).
-
And how can you get emergency disks for Avast??
-
What emergency disks are you talking about (I wasn't aware there were any, disks other than the BART CD which is costly) ?
-
Other applications for virus have the option to save emergency disks to use them in case your system goes down. I was surprised as avast seems not to have this option.
-
I have never heard of that, certainly for any of the AV I have used over ten years or more. I must have lead a sheltered life, I also trust to my own back-up and recovery system.
I use a hard disk imaging application. I also do a daily (or more frequently) back-up all the things that you don't want to lose, data files, like documents, spreadsheets, emails, email account details, registration keys, address book, favourites/bookmarks, downloaded files/programs, etc. the list goes on and on but if you don't want to lose it back it up. There are many back-up programs that can simplify this task and run it every day.
I do a weekly image of my partitions and save them to my 2nd hard disk, they can also be saved to off-line storage, DVD, USB external hard disk, etc. as part of my weekly system maintenance.
So if the worst comes to the worst at most I lose:
A. 6 days worth of program updates or new installations, but with my daily back-up I can recover most of that.
B. less than one days data files, emails, etc.
None of these is a problem and much quicker than a system reinstall and I don't have to go on-line to download the myriad of security updates needed to secure my system where there is a chance to get reinfected whilst my system has vulnerabilities because of these missing patches. Not to mention all my system tweaks and program settings are retained and I will have saved myself many hours of work and a huge amount of stress.
Many of these programs cost, there are some free ones, but it will take some research on your part to find these tools and decide on what is best for you from reviews, user feed back, etc. good luck.
-
Well, there are many applications that I have never heard of them before. And it can be very hard to find just the information you need, or the best applications to get back-ups or hard disk images, for example, if you don't know much about them.
-
BTW is there already a solution to this problem or ... do we just have to wait ? 4.8 is so slow that it takes more than 2 hours to scan 2 disks .... :(
-
I believe that the avast team are still researching this issue
I suspect that the avast team are quite busy at the moment and delays in avast scanning are not, I suggest, the highest priority that the team has to deal with right now. Please give them a longer breathing space to deal with this issue.
-
I did some changes which will hopefully speed things up (like removing that unnecessary registry access alanrf discovered - though I wouldn't expect it to cause such a slowdown).
Now, I'm waiting for Vlk to finish some other fixes and release a new beta; should be quite soon.
-
As far as I am able to tell from the testing I have conducted thus far any issues that I have reported on the scanning functions of avast 4.8 have been corrected in avast 4.8.1178 (beta version).
In the unlikely event that further testing indicates anything counter to this I will post to the forum.
By the way igor ... that:
I wouldn't expect it to cause such a slowdown
in the folder I had been reporting ... went (with the avist skin) from a scan time of 104 seconds to 0 seconds. Seems you work more wonders than you imagine.