Anti-Virus Performance Issues

I have been using eTrust by CA for years - and have been very happy with it.
Low memory foot print.
Very affordable - no annual extortion fee for signature updates
Very small performance hit.
Able to exclude directories and drives (for Vantage)
Able to exclude extensions
Able to configure any system as a redistribution server - great if you have
many clients so that your inet connection isn't swamped by signature
updates.
Able to configure different profiles for groups of computers.
Able to schedule scans and updates from an admistrative system
Able to set what settings a client is allowed to alter - temporarily.
Single license is great - a node is a node - doesn't matter if it is a
server or workstation or a pda.
All clients come at once, Windows, Novell, Mac, PDA, Linux no need to buy
different versions


The only problem is CA - they just can't seem to figure out how to run
themselves in a manner that equals the value of eTrust.
On the other hand - I also use other CA products - ArcServe and SurviveIT.
ArcServe drives me nuts. It's supposed to be a backup program not a
friggin' video game. Simplify Simplify ! I hated Thoreau in High School
English - maybe he had a point after all.


SurviveIT needs loads of babysitting. Jury is still out

Ho Ho Ho

Charles



----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Anderson" <todd.anderson@...>
To: "'Vantage @ YahooGroups. Com'" <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:14 PM
Subject: [Vantage] Anti-Virus Performance Issues


> I was at a small accounting office today trying to figure out why they
were
> having severe performance issues.
>
> Anti-Virus = McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.0
>
> With McAfee enabled - 35 seconds to open a Quickbooks database from a
> network drive.
>
> With McAfee disabled - 6 seconds to open the same database.
>
> Worst numbers I've ever seen for an anti-virus program.
>
> Is the cure worse than the disease?
>
> In this case - YES!!!
>
> Has anyone out there had a chance to benchmark the overhead imposed by
> various anti-virus programs?
>
> I hate to think what this stuff would do to a V8 installation ...
>
> I suppose it's a fine line - you want your anti-virus software to work but
> not at the expense of any reasonable performance.
>
> So what have all of you found? With your AV "ON" vs "OFF" ... how much of
> hit are all of you taking to protect against viruses?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Todd Anderson
>
>
>
>
> Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must
have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
> (1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder and
Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
> (2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
> (3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I was at a small accounting office today trying to figure out why they were
having severe performance issues.

Anti-Virus = McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.0

With McAfee enabled - 35 seconds to open a Quickbooks database from a
network drive.

With McAfee disabled - 6 seconds to open the same database.

Worst numbers I've ever seen for an anti-virus program.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

In this case - YES!!!

Has anyone out there had a chance to benchmark the overhead imposed by
various anti-virus programs?

I hate to think what this stuff would do to a V8 installation ...

I suppose it's a fine line - you want your anti-virus software to work but
not at the expense of any reasonable performance.

So what have all of you found? With your AV "ON" vs "OFF" ... how much of
hit are all of you taking to protect against viruses?

Thanks,

Todd Anderson
Todd,



Is it actually opening up the database, or just opening up Quickbooks
executables? I am not familiar with Quickbooks, is it a flat file db?
If it is a flat file, you can tell McAfee to not scan the db file. If
the db is large, it will take longer to scan, especially if the machine
is slower and/or the db is located on a network drive as well as the
network speed. In some cases, it may prove to be beneficial,
performance wise, to not virus check everything - but that is an
individual call. I have, in the past, told the desktops not to scan
incoming files off the file/print server as the server has its own virus
scanning, but sometimes also I tell the server to not scan on reads off
the shares (but always writes).



For Vantage 8, I have only noticed a slight performance hit (maybe 10%
slower - but not in all cases) in loading the initial client. I have
McAfee Enterprise 8.0 and leave out the C:\Client folder and
specifically tell it to not scan mfgsys.exe. Our biggest performance
gain for V8 was turning off the Windows Firewall (about a 30%
improvement), but even then, it only affected some of the screens
population of data and a few reports - not all. For the desktops, I
turn off Windows Firewall, for laptops, I leave it on and we suffer the
performance hit.



Steven Comeau

Manager, Corporate IT Systems

Main Tape

1 Capital Drive, Suite 101

Cranbury, NJ 08512

800-718-8273 x332

_____

From: Todd Anderson [mailto:todd.anderson@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:14 PM
To: 'Vantage @ YahooGroups. Com'
Subject: [Vantage] Anti-Virus Performance Issues



I was at a small accounting office today trying to figure out why they
were
having severe performance issues.

Anti-Virus = McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.0

With McAfee enabled - 35 seconds to open a Quickbooks database from a
network drive.

With McAfee disabled - 6 seconds to open the same database.

Worst numbers I've ever seen for an anti-virus program.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

In this case - YES!!!

Has anyone out there had a chance to benchmark the overhead imposed by
various anti-virus programs?

I hate to think what this stuff would do to a V8 installation ...

I suppose it's a fine line - you want your anti-virus software to work
but
not at the expense of any reasonable performance.

So what have all of you found? With your AV "ON" vs "OFF" ... how much
of
hit are all of you taking to protect against viruses?

Thanks,

Todd Anderson



Useful links for the Yahoo!Groups Vantage Board are: ( Note: You must
have already linked your email address to a yahoo id to enable access. )
(1) To access the Files Section of our Yahoo!Group for Report Builder
and Crystal Reports and other 'goodies', please goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/files/>
(2) To search through old msg's goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/messages
(3) To view links to Vendors that provide Vantage services goto:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage/links




_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



* Visit your group "vantage
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vantage> " on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



_____



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Todd,

We run Symantec Corporate AV v10 on 2.4GHz Dell Optiplex's with
Hyperthreading. I haven't benchmarked it with the newer v8 builds, but back
with v8.00.7xx I tried turning AV off to see if that would help. It didn't
make any measurable difference. We do have scanning of network volumes
turned off.

Hope that helps.

Happy Holidays!!

Dan Snyder
IT Manager
Mercury Electronics
717-854-9557 ext.224



-----Original Message-----
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Todd Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:14 PM
To: 'Vantage @ YahooGroups. Com'
Subject: [Vantage] Anti-Virus Performance Issues

I was at a small accounting office today trying to figure out why they were
having severe performance issues.

Anti-Virus = McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.0

With McAfee enabled - 35 seconds to open a Quickbooks database from a
network drive.

With McAfee disabled - 6 seconds to open the same database.

Worst numbers I've ever seen for an anti-virus program.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

In this case - YES!!!

Has anyone out there had a chance to benchmark the overhead imposed by
various anti-virus programs?

I hate to think what this stuff would do to a V8 installation ...

I suppose it's a fine line - you want your anti-virus software to work but
not at the expense of any reasonable performance.

So what have all of you found? With your AV "ON" vs "OFF" ... how much of
hit are all of you taking to protect against viruses?

Thanks,

Todd Anderson
Todd,

Does McAfee allow you to exclude directories from "auto protect" or
scanning?

Along Dan Synder's response... we too use Symantec AV 10 Corporate Edition
with Network drive scanning disabled (Network shares are protected by a CAVA
server) and the Vantage temp directories excluded from the Realtime File
Scan for the local Symantec AV clients.

For what its worth I'm running 3 layers of AV protection:
1. ClamAV on the UNIX Sendmail/Squid proxy servers + spamassassin
2. CAVA AV protects all of our network shares served from EMC2 Celerra
NAS/SAN
3. Symantec AV 10 Corporate Edition for 130 workstations

Avg Vantage (6.10.53x) client startup to login is 10-12seconds.

"the war isnt over until the last spammers head is stuck on a stake outside
my office"

Merry Christmas to all, Lee

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Todd Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:14 PM
To: 'Vantage @ YahooGroups. Com'
Subject: [Vantage] Anti-Virus Performance Issues


I was at a small accounting office today trying to figure out why they were
having severe performance issues.

Anti-Virus = McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 7.1.0

With McAfee enabled - 35 seconds to open a Quickbooks database from a
network drive.

With McAfee disabled - 6 seconds to open the same database.

Worst numbers I've ever seen for an anti-virus program.

Is the cure worse than the disease?

In this case - YES!!!

Has anyone out there had a chance to benchmark the overhead imposed by
various anti-virus programs?

I hate to think what this stuff would do to a V8 installation ...

I suppose it's a fine line - you want your anti-virus software to work but
not at the expense of any reasonable performance.

So what have all of you found? With your AV "ON" vs "OFF" ... how much of
hit are all of you taking to protect against viruses?

Thanks,

Todd Anderson