I’ve downloaded the free version of Avast and like what I see. There is a problem - I have started the scan (Thorough) on my laptop (Windows XP SP2) hard drive (40GB) and go to bed. After 8 hours the scan is not complete, having scanned only about 18GB. I’m told this is not normal but have no idea where to go from here.
Thanks for any assistance.
Jim
Perhaps you can tell us a bit more about the specs of your system …
Operating system detail
Processor type
Memory.
For on-demand scanning, try the “Normal” sensitivity (based on content-type: all files are opened, content-type is determined and potentially infectable files are scanned) instead of “Thourough” (all files are scanned no matter of extensions and content-types). Or even, use “Quick” level (based on extensions: no other files are opened).
Scans that are reported as taking too long unless accompanied with system information (CPU, RAM), It may be difficult to compare to see if they are slow or not.
Archive (zip, 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.
I’ll run the standard scan and see.
This is a P-3, 1GHz Intel processor with 512 MB RAM. I admit that I’ve taken this machine about as far as I can but it’s still doing everything I need at reasonable speeds so replacement is not in the near future.
Jim
Here is the problem in my opinion…
Scanning is an intensive operation that requires a lot from the computer.
As has been mentioned there is quite a load on your system during a thorough scan especially if you also select scan Archives. For your system performance it will be slowed somewhat. If you can add some more RAM a relatively cheap option I’m sure you will see an improvement in your overall system performance.
A Standard Scan without archives should be considerably quicker.
What other security based software do you have that might have an impact on the avast scan, e.g. resident anti-spyware applications, SpySweeper, Spyware Doctor, PrevX, WinPatrol, etc. ?
Welcome to the forums.
Each system is different. Here is the result from a thorough scan with the following settings
types-content, scan all files
sensitivity-test whole files
packers-all packers
Perhaps as DavidR asks, there may be something else running during the scan.
Well despite Tech’s disparagement of our machines … I too have a machine that is a P-3 1Ghz CPU system with 512Mb of memory (the maximum that machine will accept). The system is Windows XP Pro SP2 fully up to date.
This machine ceased to be my primary system about a year ago but it is still my backup system, I keep it up to date and still use it for testing purposes.
Though I keep it pretty much up to date, tonight, in response to this thread I decided to run my usual thorough scan (using quickscan.exe as a scheduled task) with the latest release of avast.
I’m guessing that the original poster’s machine and mine are of a similar age. Mine is a Dell from 2000. While machines of that age typically had disks at ATA 66 mine was able to have an ATA 100 controller to provide faster disk access when it was delivered. I later replaced the ATA 100 controller with an ATA 133 controller and upgraded the disks in the machine with the result that the system has considerably improved disk access rates over an original machine of that time.
Since avast has installed more unpackers in recent times and I use the most thorough scan possible my scan time is now longer than it used to be on this machine.
The result from my thorough scan tonight as reported by avast was:
11.1Gb of data scanned in exactly 60 minutes.
To be fair to Tech’s comment about the age and capacity of these machines, it is worth noting that the CPU was pegged at 100% for almost the entire duration of the scan. I will add my boring old comment that I do not care about this since I schedule my weekly scan to run on Friday evening while I have a relaxed dinner with a glass of wine or several.
Just one other comment, this week since I was running this scan on my old system I actually stayed with the systems. Just as well since my testing in another … um … err … interesting … thread in this forum this week had left virus traces all over my main system sirens and warning alarms from avast were going off all over the place!
It’s my opinion. I don’t have the speedest computer in the world… but, for sure, I can recognize a speed computer from a simple one. A P-3 is not a Ferrari…
Come on now … I did also add …
To be fair to Tech's comment about the age and capacity of these machines, it is worth noting that the CPU was pegged at 100% for almost the entire duration of the scan.
As I said this machine ceased being my main system about a year ago. All of the USB drives that were on it then have been moved over to the new system. It is now taking longer to perform a weekly scan than it did then. Hardly any new data has been added and a great deal (the USB drives) removed so I can only guess that the additional scanners that have been added to avast in the past year are helping to show the age of these older CPU’s.
Indeed the last (since avast 4.5) providers added take more resources. Specially if the Standard Shield is set to High or even if it is set to Normal but files opened/created/modified are scanned.
About the misunderstandings, let them go 8)
Thanks for the welcome. I shutdown everything else. But I do run Ad-aware, MS Firewall and sit behind a router with its’ own firewall built in.
I’ve run the Standard Scan without archives and here is the result:
Number of Scanned Files/Folders: 62607/5983
Runtime: 1 hr 59 min 49 sec
Total: 27.7 GB
So it did run successfully. I don’t think you’ll regard this as excessive on this my machine - am I correct?
Jim
I personally can’t compare as my system is somewhat faster, with more memory and less data, so I have no direct comparison
A Standard Scan without archives for only 7 GB of data takes about 10 minutes so 4 times the data on my system would be in the region of 40 minutes. Given your system I would have thought probably double that at about 80 minutes, so perhaps it is a little slow, this however is a very loose estimation.
Alan might be able to give a better idea as his back-up system is nearer your spec. if he ran a standard scan without archives. However, his thorough scan wasn’t bad.
The result from my thorough scan tonight as reported by avast was:11.1Gb of data scanned in exactly 60 minutes.
I think it is not easy to compare any two systems unless they were delivered on the same day at the same price from the same manufacturer … and even then you’d be lucky.
I just performed a scan of the kind suggested by David. It was a standard scan (without archives). The only change since my last post in this thread was a VPS (signature file) update by avast. The results of the scan were:
Number of scanned files/folders 43668/4381
Runtime of last scan 00:22:21
Total size of scanned files 7.6GB
The results of a thorough scan were consistent with the ashquick scan I reported earlier:
Number of scanned files/folders 266301/4381
Runtime of last scan 01:01:36
Total size of scanned files 11.1GB
What does this tell us that is worthy of direct comparison? Well not a lot to be honest.
If we take the standard scan then it is worth noting that the CPU was not pegged at 100% - at the times I sampled it I would guess it was running in the 60-75% range. So, despite it not beng a Ferrari - it was not, I think the limiting factor. What is more important in the standard scan case is the disk access speed. Whereas, in the case of the thorough scan I reported the CPU pegged at 100% most of the time. When the CPU is maxxed out the disk speed is, ultimately, unimportant.
I do not know the full specs of jhenthorn’s system. My system was high end at the time I bought it. The 1 GHz P3 processor came with a system board that supported the disk at ATA 66. I paid extra for a faster disk and a (then newly available) ATA 100 controller card. As I mentioned earlier, I have replaced that controller card with an ATA 133 card and the disks to match it.
If jhenthorn’s machine has disk(s) running on an ATA66 or even an ATA100 controller then my standard scan per GB should be faster. That seems to be borne out by the facts. With about 4 times my volume of data being scanned in a standard scan it should take (on my system) about 1.5 hours. Given that I have have a faster disk/disk controller configuration I suggest the scan the time reported by jhenthorn is not at all unreasonable.