EAVBE 4.0.474 on SBS 2008 - Performance query

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by jimwillsher, Jan 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jimwillsher

    jimwillsher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Posts:
    668
    Hi all,

    I've just replaced an SBS2003 setup (running EAVBE 3.0.672) with an SBS2008 setup, this time running EAVBE 4.0.474. We've gone live this morning to horrendous performance problems. Pings to or from the server from LAN devices were 400-500ms, not the <1ms we expected.

    I've uninstalled ESET and rebooted, and all pings are now <1ms. So clearly ESET is somehow involved in the cause here.

    I don't want to start a 3.0 versus 4.0 debate, that's been done already. What I'm trying to understand is the possible cause.

    I had a "default" install of 4.0.474, changing ONLY two things: clicking the default button in the scanning extensions, and disabling "scan on create".

    Can the learned folks here put on their thinking caps please. Do you think this is an issue with "4.0 on servers", that's been discussed before? Do you think it's a conflict between ESET and one of the components that SBS 2008 installs?

    At present the server's running naked, with no AV. Should I attempt to install the 3.0 stream on the server?

    All advice welcome.

    Many thanks,




    Jim
     
  2. WayneP

    WayneP Support Specialist

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    339
  3. jimwillsher

    jimwillsher Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Posts:
    668
    Many thanks. But we already had all those exclusions (and many more).

    Overall server performance was fine, when on the server. But anything accessing the server was really slow because pings to the server were 300ms-500ms. Even pings from the server to the router were 300ms-500ms. So it's not a scanning thing or an exclusion thing, it's something to do with the way ESET interacts with the network stack.

    We had to uninstall it.


    Jim
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.