I backed up 100k files to my PC from the LAN without an exclusion for the backup directory.
So I added to:
Active Protection->File System Shield->Exclusions->C:\Users\mike\Documents\4.Backups* RWX.
But it still shows in statistics, files in sub directories still being scanned.
Then I went ahead and added General->Exclusions and added the same path above to “File Paths” and “Deep Screen”.
Yet the ball still spins and statistics show it is still going through all these files. If I turn off File protection and back on it just picks up where it left off.
I updated to that version but I cannot tell if it is fixed since statistics has been removed from the new version. Where is the last scanned log file in the new version kept? thx
From a response by one of the avast team, the file name in the list as the scan cycles through the files, but by all accounts that is it, it isn’t scanned even though the file name is shown.
Thanks. For thousands a files it is still unnecessary CPU usage. I suppose it does not matter now since the last scanned feature has been removed from the new version. I guess there is no log file either since I can’t find it.
Well by having exclusions the list has to be checked and that would be try if you didn’t have any exclusions. Avast wouldn’t know until it refers to the exclusions list, so no additional overhead.
Either that or physically mark/flag files that have been excluded, so they aren’t even looked it and checked against a list.
As an avast user I don’t know exactly how they achieve this, my answers come from my recollections of other replies by avast team members.
The logs should be there if you have enabled the Generation of a log in the Scan Settings, then it has the same name as the scan title. They are in the C:\ProgramData\AVAST Software\Avast\report folder (for Vista, Win7 and later OS). You would also have to change the settings as only detected file/s information is stored.
Of course you can change the report settings and have it record OK files, but it would become massive quickly and possibly have more of an overhead than for the exclusions anyway.
