Author Topic: Improving Startup Time (Resident Protection)  (Read 3122 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

teedoff087

  • Guest
Improving Startup Time (Resident Protection)
« on: June 26, 2004, 06:37:27 AM »
I think there's a bug in the exclusion list for the Standard Shield exclusion list for Resident Protection. Is there supposed to be a character limit on that list? I get to a certain point in the list and then all of the entries past that are deleted when I come back to the list the next time.

techie101

  • Guest
Re:Improving Startup Time (Resident Protection)
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2004, 07:00:37 AM »
tee,

I am not sure exactly what your problem is at the moment.
The exclusion list contains a default of 55 extensions.
Are you adding to the list yourself?  Even then, I am sure that the list can be very extensive if you wanted that many entries.

What happens if you reboot?  Do the entries reappear?
This may indicate a problem within the OnAccess Protection control itself.


teedoff087

  • Guest
Re:Improving Startup Time (Resident Protection)
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2004, 07:43:26 AM »
I'm talking about the exclusion list in the advanced tab. It excludes locations to be scanned (not file extensions). If I wanted to exclude another extension, it would be .exe, but that would be a little risky, wouldn't it? ;)  I'm trying to decrease the amount of directories and files that are scanned upon system startup. Avast takes up a lot of CPU at boot time. When I add to the list of directory exclusions, it stops adding them at a certain point. I just reinstalled Avast so I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with On-Access Protection that wouldn't be wrong on someone else's machine by default. Standard Shield scans 208 files at startup and as I install more programs, that number goes up. Does anyone know what's wrong or how to speed up startup time. I had a very clean startup before I installed Avast but now because of this unnecessary scan at startup, it has slowed down my system immensely.

techie101

  • Guest
Re:Improving Startup Time (Resident Protection)
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2004, 05:33:46 PM »
Quote
I'm talking about the exclusion list in the advanced tab. It excludes locations to be scanned (not file extensions).
Yes, default is 9 locations.  

Quote
If I wanted to exclude another extension, it would be .exe, but that would be a little risky, wouldn't it? ;)
My oh My....Yes!  ::)

Quote
Avast takes up a lot of CPU at boot time.
This topic Always comes up.  Avast does use a bit more cpu memory while runnng in "boot".  The program is doing so much, that the increase is negligible.  It is the result of the manner in which Avast scan engine operates.  Although it uses a bit more than other avs, it is far more efficient at what it does!

Quote
When I add to the list of directory exclusions, it stops adding them at a certain point.
I am not aware of a limit to the list, however, I imagine that there would have to be limitations to prevent "overloading" the scan.  The Avast gurus should be able to clarify this for you.  I am but a lowly Avast servant.  ;D

Quote
Standard Shield scans 208 files at startup and as I install more programs, that number goes up.
Of cours it does.  If you add more programs.....you add more files.  More files means more scan time.

Quote
Does anyone know what's wrong or how to speed up startup time.
Nothing is wrong as far as I can determine by what you have said here.  I do not run the "boot" scan at startup to conserve cpu usage.  As an alternative, I run it once a month and set Avast to run a full Thorough scan with Archives a few times a week.

Quote
I had a very clean startup before I installed Avast but now because of this unnecessary scan at startup, it has slowed down my system immensely.
How do you clasify a "clean" startup?  The more you ask Avast to do, the longer the scan time.  It is normal and a basic criteria for proper av operation.

If you want the excellent protection offered by Avast, then some sacrifices have to be made here and there.

Cutting corners in the scan can be dangerous in the long run.

Hope this helps.