Eset Internet Security Antivirus software performance thread (Windows - PC)

|tera| said:
This link specifies all Win 10 editions irrespective of Windows edition.
Click to expand...
None of that is required or advised.

User.dat is excluded by ESET without intervention.

Exactly how old is this hardware and is it Win10 capable?
 
rustypup said:
None of that is required or advised.

User.dat is excluded by ESET without intervention.

Exactly how old is this hardware and is it Win10 capable?
Click to expand...
I fail to see how it's not required, since it's official MS material for any AV solution.
Does MS just waste time by publishing unneeded documentation?

The actual mobo and hardware is Win 10 capable. The primary hdd is only a 3GBps SATA drive however. The mobo can't support higher SATA rates. The hdd is very old.
 
Last edited:
|tera| said:
I fail to see how it's not required
Click to expand...
MS Blurb said:
Note We recommend that you temporarily apply these settings to evaluate system behavior. If your system performance or stability is improved by the recommendations that are made in this article, contact your antivirus software vendor for instructions or for an updated version or settings of the antivirus software.

Important This article contains information that shows how to help lower security settings or how to temporarily turn off security features on a computer. You can make these changes to understand the nature of a specific problem. Before you make these changes, we recommend that you evaluate the risks that are associated with implementing this workaround in your particular environment. If you implement this workaround, take any appropriate additional steps to help protect the computer.
<..>
We do not recommend this workaround but are providing this information so that you can implement this workaround at your own discretion. Use this workaround at your own risk.
Click to expand...

Absolutely NOT required. At all.

Sounds like the HDD, combined with Win 10's NTFS implementation is the actual issue.
 
rustypup said:
Absolutely NOT required. At all.

Sounds like the HDD, combined with Win 10's NTFS implementation is the actual issue.
Click to expand...
I've added it as a performance exclusion. Not a detection exclusion.
eis.png
 
Feel free to read the linked content. Performance exclusion excludes the targeted files/folders from scanning.

It's right there. In the documentation.
 
rustypup said:
Feel free to read the linked content. Performance exclusion excludes the targeted files/folders from scanning.

It's right there. In the documentation.
Click to expand...
Excluded from scanning, not detection.
If a detection is found within the performance exclusions, it will be found and cleaned:

Performance exclusions allow you to exclude files and folders from scanning. Performance exclusions are useful to exclude file-level scanning of gaming applications or when causing abnormal system behavior or increased performance.

Detection exclusions allow you to exclude objects from cleaning using the detection name, path or its hash. Detection exclusions do not exclude files and folders from scanning as performance exclusions do. Detection exclusions exclude objects only when they are detected by the detection engine and an appropriate rule is present in the exclusion list.
 
rustypup said:
If you're not scanning, you're not detecting.

Trust me, you've excluded them from detection as well.
Click to expand...
Then I misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.

I will remove the exclusions and see how performance goes.
 
rustypup said:
What did the file IO queue look like during a normal scan?
Click to expand...
I didn't measure it. I tried now though and I'm not getting the info from performance monitor.
I'll try again when I'm up for it. The PC is running fine with the exclusions removed.
 
It definitely does not like me trying to install surshark VPN software on my laptop saying it detects a virus.
Avast doesnt have a problem with it, nor Windows Defender.
 
justplain said:
Avast doesnt have a problem with it, nor Windows Defender
Click to expand...
While it *could* be a false positive, I would not trust Defender to make a cup of sand.

I've seen too much obvious crud blow past that thing and submitting obvious crud to the Defender/ATP team has almost always resulted in "no infectious payload found", despite providing logs and playback.

Avast is not much better...
 
rustypup said:
While it *could* be a false positive, I would not trust Defender to make a cup of sand.

I've seen too much obvious crud blow past that thing and submitting obvious crud to the Defender/ATP team has almost always resulted in "no infectious payload found", despite providing logs and playback.

Avast is not much better...
Click to expand...
"Free" antivirus. Avoid like the plague (kind if counterintuitive in 2020, though).
 
A few passing observations:
M$ AV's are ok-ish untill you browse a network and it tries to scan everything on it. They also take a lot of control from you in other areas.

Even a free AV is better than no AV.... paid is always better though.

On old HW..... sometimes it's best to just install linux if you can't take the slow speed. Eset (just the AV, the marketing lies) runs on linux too these days if you HAVE to have it and it should take up less resources there anyway.

The beauty of ESET lisencing is it registers the machine not the OS so you can run the same license on a machine and dualboot like a madman with an installation on each concurrent OS.
 
@rustypup

Today was a slow day again with Eset (I didn't make any changes).
The PC was crawling again.
The hard drive seems to be the cause as you said. It's an old 320Gb Seagate HDD (3GBps)

I've tried to get some info in performance monitor about the usage and the problem, but it doesn't return info on it.
Software like Crystaldisk however shows that everything on the drive is healthy and working.
The HDD makes a lot of noise as well. Which was a common thing in these older drives.

I managed to get a Seagate 1TB drive. I'm just waiting for it.
Once I've got that installed I'll be able to see if it is my PC (overall) or just the HDD.
If it's either, it's not such a loss. I can live with waiting a few more milliseconds.
I think I'll do a clean install as well. :)

Thanks for your help, even if you were a dick at some stage.
I would buy you a beer and give you a smoke if you were here :p ;) :D just to say I'm your friend :p
 
|tera| said:
I've tried to get some info in performance monitor about the usage and the problem, but it doesn't return info on it.
Click to expand...
Win10 Resource Monitor should provide queue and IO stats....
 
rustypup said:
Win10 Resource Monitor should provide queue and IO stats....
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm not going to test it extensively.
The drive only has a 8Mb cache. It's bound to be slow.

The new one I'm getting sits at 128Mb.

Edit: fixed cache size of new hdd.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X