Faster scanning

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by Marcos, Oct 16, 2010.

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

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Those who have pre-release updates enabled, could you please check if subsequent scans are now completed faster with Smart optimization enabled? Should you come across any problems, let us know.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  2. Banger696

    Banger696 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Posts:
    274
    Is this an update for normal scanning eg scheduled or smart scanning only? I have noticed the slow down, my drives used to take 30 mins to scan now it takes an hour and half.
     
  3. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    I have pre-release updates enabled but not Smart Opto on the scanning engine, since it not a default, normally I complete a 250 GB HDD in ~ 30 mins.

    Will do with Smart Opto enabled and post back my findings.
     
  4. Banger696

    Banger696 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Posts:
    274
    Ahh I see the option now, this only applies to Smart Scan profile?
     
  5. vtol

    vtol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Posts:
    774
    Location:
    just around the next corner
    whoah, that is on-demand in-depth-scan on ?filesystem?, ?OS?, ?CPU?, background scan with low priority and all options enabled?
    just curious, or more jealous, because with i7 CPU, 500 GB HD and approx. 250 GB of data, NTFS, WIN7 64bit, background scan with low priority and all options enabled, Smart optimization disabled, on-demand in-depth-scan it takes more than 4 hrs to complete!
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  6. Banger696

    Banger696 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Posts:
    274
    Yea me jealous too I only have two 80gb drives - hour and half.
     
  7. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    2x 250 GB HDD drives, Win XP Pro SP3, CPU 2.53 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, with Smart Opto enabled, full, in depth scan, comes in at 25 mins, saves, +|- 5 mins, assuming I'm doing what you have requested, @Marcos.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  8. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    Never had an issue with Scanning
     
  9. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Do you mean that two subsequent scans scanning the same files take about the same time? Just to make sure, check if you have the Antivirus and antispyware scanner module 1288 installed (Help->About).
     
  10. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    My prior in-depth scan finished at 30 minutes, with Smart Opto enabled, it now finishes at 25 minutes. I did not run two scans today prior and after you had suggested testing these settings. The prior scan time, I know from memory the completion time. The adjusted scan took less 5 minutes than prior.

     
  11. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Both scans must be run with Smart optimization enabled. Of course, an update cannot be performed in the mean time or the cache will be reset.
     
  12. vtol

    vtol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Posts:
    774
    Location:
    just around the next corner
    reading your posts got me kind of confused, 30 min with Smart optimization disabled and 5 minutes less with Smart optimization enabled?
     
  13. FanJ

    FanJ Updates Team

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    2,564
    Earlier today I got the new one. I have pre-released enabled.
    An in-depth scan took about 35 minutes instead of about 48 minutes.
    This is on XP-home SP3, Dutch, with IE6.
    EAV 4.2.64.12 English.

    BUT .... after reboot I got BSOD o_O I'll start a separate thread about that because I don't know whether it is related....
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2010
  14. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    If you have Smart optimization enabled in your on-demand scanner profile, a subsequent scan should be completed very quickly, within a couple of seconds at maximum.
    This should not be related. You can verify this by disabling Smart optimization.
     
  15. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    A significantly faster scanning Eset would get peoples attention for sure.
     
  16. siljaline

    siljaline Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Posts:
    6,619
    I just ran another in depth scan with Smart optimization enabled. The total scan time of two 250 GB HDD's is ~23 minutes, just a bit faster than previous.

     
  17. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    First Folder Scan (Smart Optimization Enabled):
    Second Folder Scan (Smart Optimization Enabled):
     
  18. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    my deep scans every two days run 1hour 40 minutes normally - smart optimization is enabled - I was on 1287 yesterday from our mirror - even though I have pre-release enabled.

    pointing my updates to ESET public servers, I grabbed 1288 and fired off my deep scan scheduled task manually... will report back when it is done.
     
  19. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    I hope you mean module update, and not signature update. Because what would be the point to have cache for if it resets after a signature update. No one will perform two scans in such a short time.

    I did three Smart scans (with Smart optimization enabled) in the last two days.
    I am not sure whether I had the 1288 module during the first scan, I am sure I had it during scan 2. I always had pre-release updates enabled so you might be able to see whether I had the scanner module 1288 if you see the database version I had during scan 1.

    All the info you need:

    16-10-2010 13:52:47 - Updated signature database to version 5537.

    Scan 1:
    Database version: 5537 (20101016)
    Date: 16-10-2010 Starttime: 17:49:41
    Scanned objects: 465494
    Time of completion: 18:36:54 Total scantime: 2833 sec. (00:47:13)

    17-10-2010 11:36:09 - Updated signature database to version 5539.

    Scan 2:
    Database version: 5539 (20101017)
    Date: 17-10-2010 Starttime: 11:48:05
    Scanned objects: 463745
    Time of completion: 12:29:58 Total scantime: 2513 sec. (00:41:53)

    Scan 3:
    Database version: 5539 (20101017)
    Date: 17-10-2010 Startime: 12:32:33
    Scanned objects: 463755
    Time of completion: 13:13:56 Total scantime: 2483 sec. (00:41:23)

    Scan 2 was 6 minutes faster than scan 1 (the pc has been off during the night).
    You can see scan 2 and 3 were performed subsequentely, and you don't see any improvement.

    All info about my Dutch ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.2.64.12 64-bit version.

    Database viruskenmerken: 5539 (20101017)
    Updatemodule: 1031 (20091029)
    Module voor antivirus- en antispywarescanner: 1288 (20101016)
    Module voor geavanceerde heuristiek: 1114 (20100827)
    Module voor archiveringsondersteuning: 1122 (20100826)
    Opschoonmodule: 1048 (20091123)
    Anti-Stealthmodule: 1022 (20100812)
    SysInspectormodule: 1217 (20100907)
    Zelfverdedigingsmodule: 1018 (20100812)
    Real-time beveiligingsmodule bestandsysteem: 1004 (20100727)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2010
  20. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Of course I meant signature update. Otherwise the computer would be exposed at risk and it would be same as disabling recognition of newly added detections. Note that some files might have been already scanned by the startup scanner, real-time or web access protection so they don't need to be scanned twice or even more times unless the virus signature database is updated or the files have changed in the mean time.
    Since scan 2 and 3 were run with the same signature database, can you confirm you didn't change any settings either? I would expect scan 3 to take much less time to complete.
     
  21. Banger696

    Banger696 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Posts:
    274
    I have my settings at default. Will try with Smart Opto enabled on In-depth.
     
  22. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    Okay clear, so that means your type of cache is something different than AVG's or avast's interpretation.
    No, didn't change any setting. That is also why I added your quote about a subsequent scan taking very little time.
     
  23. webyourbusiness

    webyourbusiness Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,640
    Location:
    Throughout the USA and Canada
    last night:

    Engine 1287
    Smart Optimization ON
    Objects scanned: 1,202,622
    Tim: 01:39:30

    Today:
    Engine 1288
    Smart Optimization ON
    Objects scanned: 1,044,934
    Tim: 01:23:01
     
  24. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Different engines, it makes no sense to compare the scan time in such case.
     
  25. Brambb

    Brambb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Posts:
    411
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    My test results of last night confirm faster scanning when smart optimization is enabled.

    Scan 1:
    Number of scanned objects: 293833
    Number of threats found: 1
    Number of cleaned objects: 0
    Time of completion: 1:22:57 AM Total scanning time: 807 sec (00:13:27)

    Scan 2:
    Number of scanned objects: 194760
    Number of threats found: 1
    Number of cleaned objects: 0
    Time of completion: 1:26:28 AM Total scanning time: 198 sec (00:03:18 )

    Both are 'smart scans' of my OS drive.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.