Long Scan Time

[Beaky]

Hi,

Has anyone else noticed an increase in "on demand" scan times using build 459?

I have just completed a thorough scan of 8 GB of files, archive on, 196596 files scanned, scan time 48:48, infected files 0.  This is the first full scan of my C drive since the update, athough I have not changed any Avast settings this scan has taken about twice as long as usual.

My Computer CPU is running at 1.7GHz, with 384 Meg RAM, operating system  Windows XP Home Version 2002 SP2.  Also running during the scan, Spyguard version 2.2.0 & Sygate Firewall version 5.6 build 2808.

Already, checked PC with Trend online scanner, Ad-Aware & Spybot, nothing found!  Last defrag ran last week after latest MS updates were installed.

So is it just me or are there others?

Cheers,

Beaky
 

     
 

[Eddy]

My Computer CPU is running at 1.7GHz, with 384 Meg RAM, operating system  Windows XP

Too less ram to run XP in a decent way.

196.000+ files? Too much for the OS and used applications. Is this include the date? (mp3's, movies, and such?)

This is the first full scan of my C drive since the update, athough I have not changed any Avast settings this scan has taken about twice as long as usual.

Compared to what? How did you messure the time?

[Beaky]

Hi  Eddy,

Interesting comment about the amount of RAM athough I don't appear to be running slow or have problems streaming, so what do you think I should have?  

Yep, I can see what you're saying about the files, I am scanning the whole of C drive therefore scanning un-necessary files.  This will probably shock you, but other than setting the scan level, I have never changed any of the other settings.  Okay I have now had a look and see that I can and should be more be more selective in the folders that I scan  

I have been using Avast for about two years and over twelve months on this computer with the same setup, in that time I have carried out many scans of C drive.  I have always used the thorough setting and not had a scan longer than twenty eight minutes before, so forty four minutes was quite a surprise  

Looking at the response to this post it looks as if it is down to me not Avast

[Lisandro]

Has anyone else noticed an increase in "on demand" scan times using build 459?

Beaky, I think you can't.  :'(
This is not one of the best features of avast.
On-demand scanning is slower than other antivirus (AntiVir, BitDefender, AVG) trying to make 'similar' scanning options (archives, etc.).
You can disable 'archive' scanning. This will increase very much the scanning speed.

[alanrf]

Although I am a new user of Avast! I can support the comments from Technical.  

My final scan using Norton AV (scanning all files including archives) took 41 minutes (I know a bit long but I do have 4 physical drives to cover).  The same day, applying the same exclusion list that I used with Norton, I ran another scan with the current Avast! release.  I did select "scan archive files" but accepted the mid level of sensitivity for the scan.  My Avast! scan ran for 98 minutes.  I ran the scan again, this time without archive files included, the scan completed in 21 minutes.

While Norton certainly did a lot of file writes/reads to achieve archive scanning the volume of writes/reads involved in Avast! archive scanning is very significantly more.

To stay with Avast! I think I shall have to forgo archive scanning.

[alanrf]

By the way your memory is perfectly adequate for normal use of XP.  More is (almost) always better but don't feel you have to rush out and buy more.

[Lisandro]

By the way your memory is perfectly adequate for normal use of XP.  More is (almost) always better but don't feel you have to rush out and buy more.

I think the same.  
Your processor speed will be the 'slow' guy in you system.
Users could have 'more' RAM than necessary, as the processor (CPU) will slow the system before the RAM limit is reached. There is some freewares that compare and evaluate the system to tell you how much RAM do you need  

[Beaky]

I have had a look at Crucial Memory web site, okay I know they are salesmen, but they do recomend at least 512 MB for my machine! Evidently I can install upto 2048 MB .... but really!!!!

I am easy on resources using this machine, nothing too taxing, no games ... not interested, mainly used for broadband surfing Mozilla, MS office .... no large spreadsheets but lots of Word docs, I stream internet radio again no problem and can stream  internet  TV okay.  Yep I know it is not very exciting, but then neither am I  

So I suppose the question is how much would I gain from extra memory? Although as it's not too expensive, I will give it some serious consideration in the New Year!

Back to Avast, I once found a virus (worm) using Bitdefender online scanner that Avast 4.1 had missed, Avast only found it once I had changed the setting of the "on demand" scanner to thorough and re-scanned C drive again! So I guess that I want to keep that setting, but what is the risk of not scanning archive files ..... I assume that there must be some risk otherwise this would not be an Avast option?  

[Lisandro]

Back to Avast, I once found a virus (worm) using Bitdefender online scanner that Avast 4.1 had missed, Avast only found it once I had changed the setting of the "on demand" scanner to thorough and re-scanned C drive again! So I guess that I want to keep that setting, but what is the risk of not scanning archive files ..... I assume that there must be some risk otherwise this would not be an Avast option?

The risk is having an infected file in your computer.
Anyway, while standard shield is running, you're protected because when the archive is unpacked it will caught the virus.
The option to disable archive scanning (customize Standard Shield > Scanner (advanced) options) is an option of you... disabled, avast will only caught the virus before it is executed. Some users don't feel that easy with this security level. So, use the 'High' sencurity level (you will use more resources of your system). It's an user option