Skip to main content

performance - How to ask antivirus software to work slower and hence use less disk access?

It is our policy for our end-user's computers (usually laptops) to have high power CPUs, GPUs, RAMs (no less than 16GB) and HDD space (1TB), but we save money by choosing lower rotation speed of HDD. We have very high rotation speed for our servers instead. Usually it works quite good, but antivirus software is raising problems. I can observe in Task Manager that if total (from all the processes) disk access is more than 4-5 MB/s, then the Taks Manager indicates 100% use of disk access and the other applications are slowing down visibly. Usually the antivirus software, especially scanner process is consuming the highest part of the disc access. Of course, I can assigner lower priority for antivirus software but this has impact of CPU use (which is not problem). But is it possible to slow down the disk access of antivirus scanner process? It is OK, that each downloaded file, each accessed web page is scanned in real time, but I don't see the necessity to have high disk access and express resource consumption for the long-running background disk scanner processes. We use many of our computers for programming, that is why each of them can contain around 5.000.000 files or more (no more than 15.000.000 files). So - scanner is trying to process quickly all those files and the work is impossible.



And regarding the option to do scans during idle/maintenance time. Well - it is important to stress that we use mainly laptops for the end users, many of them take their computers home, have flexible schedules. So - there is no time window that could be planned especially for the maintenance activities. So - this is no option. I wonder why antivirus companies are not thinking in terms of customer satisfaction?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able