Eset is maxing out my Exchange server cpu, Help!

Discussion in 'Other ESET Business Products' started by twtickle, Aug 18, 2011.

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

    twtickle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Posts:
    3
    Not sure how to tweak this set up of eset mail security 4. Since installing it 7 days ago it's maxing out the cpu usage of my server (MS Exchange 2010 Win 200:cool:. Everyone's email is at a crawl. Any suggestions would be helpful.
     
  2. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Have you tried disabling the backgorund scan? Also check the Post-install section of the help and make sure to set the number of scan threads and engines according to the instructions:

    Performance
    If there are no other restrictions, our recommendation is to increase the number of ThreatSense scan engines in the Advanced settings window (F5) under Server protection > Antivirus and antispyware > Microsoft Exchange Server > VSAPI > Performance, according to this formula: number of scan threads = (number of physical CPUs x 2) + 1. Also, the number of scan threads should be equal to the number of ThreatSense scan engines. You can configure the number of scan engines under Computer protection > Antivirus and antispyware > Performance. Here is an example:

    Let's say you have a server with 4 physical CPUs. For the best performance, according to formula above, you should have 9 scan threads and 9 scan engines.

    NOTE: We recommend that you set the number of ThreatSense scan engines equal to the number of scan threads used. It will have no effect on performance when you use more scan threads than scan engines.
     
  3. rockshox

    rockshox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Posts:
    261
    Marcos - Just to be absolutely sure, we should use the number of "Physical Processors" when calculating the number of scan threads? Some of the Microsoft documentation mentions using the number of logical processors while other documentation says physical processors.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.