Threat Scan Runs Way Too Long

[rose1054]

Last week I reported that the threat scan in 2.0 was running three to four times longer than the quick scan in 1.75. "FIREFOX" reported that a new engine was installed for 2.0 but short of that couldn't account for the longer scan times. Today the threat scan runs approx. three to five times longer than the quick scan of old. I can see by the posts this seems to be a common problem reported by other users so I have no doubt that MAM staff is trying to understand why the scans run so much longer than the old release. Oh and a full scan with 2.0 ran for hours compared with 40 minutes with R1.75. Yes archive was disabled as well as rook kit scanning. The number of files is the same and the hardware is the same.

[daledoc1]

Hi, rose1054:
 
Is this the same computer about which you previously posted here?
 
If so, the same explanations still apply.
The new version has a more powerful scanning engine that scans files and locations that were not scanned by version 1.xx.

This will generally require a bit more time, as a trade-off for the increased scanning capability.
In addition, other factors contribute to scan times:
 

Time taken is due to a many factors some which can be dealt with and others not as easily.

Size of disk
Disk type
Disk speed
Disk caching
CPU speed
Controller type and speed
Operating System used
Amount of files
Amount of folders
Amount of archived files such as zip, rar, sfx, etc.
Rootkit scan or not
PUM/PUP scans
Other security programs running at the same time that may potentially be monitoring all file accesses by any other process.
Drive integrity - if a drive is failing it can take a long time to ignore and bypass sectors on a disk or simply fail period and hang the scan.
Other ongoing disk I/O processes
System being infected can also affect speed of scans

https://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=145429#entry811422

 
Another factor not listed there is the size of the database, which can change from day to day.
 
Having said all that, there will be new build released soon -- it's being tested now and seems to scan a bit faster on some systems.
 
And, having said all that, too, the staff would be more than happy to assist you with your own computer.
In order to do so, they'll need a bit of information about the computer, as each one is unique.

If you would like them to have a look, please read the following and post back the requested logs as attachments to your next reply:
Diagnostic Logs

The staff experts will review the logs and advise you.

 

Thanks,

 

daledoc1

ALSO, for additional information:
There is an FAQ Section here: Common Questions, Issues, and their Solutions
And here are links to the MBAM 2.0 User Guide: Online and PDF
 

[rose1054]

Hi, rose1054:

 

Is this the same computer about which you previously posted here?

 

If so, the same explanations still apply.

The new version has a more powerful scanning engine that scans files and locations that were not scanned by version 1.xx.

This will generally require a bit more time, as a trade-off for the increased scanning capability.

In addition, other factors contribute to scan times:

 

 

Another factor not listed there is the size of the database, which can change from day to day.

 

Having said all that, there will be new build released soon -- it's being tested now and seems to scan a bit faster on some systems.

 

And, having said all that, too, the staff would be more than happy to assist you with your own computer.

In order to do so, they'll need a bit of information about the computer, as each one is unique.

If you would like them to have a look, please read the following and post back the requested logs as attachments to your next reply:

Diagnostic Logs

The staff experts will review the logs and advise you.

 

Thanks,

 

daledoc1

ALSO, for additional information:

There is an FAQ Section here: Common Questions, Issues, and their Solutions

And here are links to the MBAM 2.0 User Guide: Online and PDF

 

 

Yes it is. Sorry I am a performance guru by trade in open systems and mainframe so I have a tendency to compare performance. The number of object being scanned is pretty much the same ,

 

[daledoc1]

Hi, rose1054:
 
Well, if you'd like the staff to see if there are adjustments (in addition to disabling ARK and archive scanning) that could be made to speed up your scan times, they'll need to see what's going on with your system.

To do so, please follow the steps here and post back with the logs: Diagnostic Logs
It will only take a few moments.

The staff will review them for possible issues.
 
Thanks,
 
daledoc1
 
P.S. It would make your threads easier for everyone to read and follow, if you could please use the button, instead of the button.

[KenW]

Quick Scan = Hyper Scan

 

You are not talking about the same thing.

[daledoc1]

Hi:
 

Quick Scan = Hyper Scan
 
You are not talking about the same thing.

 
Actually, in fact HYPER scan is the old FLASH scan.
THREAT scan is the old QUICK scan.
(And CUSTOM scan is the old FULL scan.)

 

So, yes, it does appear that @rose1054 is comparing the "same" scan types?
 
Cheers,
 
daledoc1

[KenW]

I understand. Thanks. I  am running 2.0 on three 8.1 computers two have 3.5 gig cpu's. The notebook has a 1.4 gig cpu and I notice no difference in speed to 1.75. No computers have many pictures, music or other small files. All C drives are under 200 gig.  with maybe 40 gigs used. Wonder how many gigs of files are on some of these machines that are being complained about and since 2.0 has a better scan engine that could explain some of the speed increases in time.

[daledoc1]

Hi, KenW:

 

Yep, the new scan names threw many of us for a loop, as they say.

The change does take a bit of "getting used to".

 

As for what accounts for differences in scan times between 1.x and 2.x on different systems, it's really impossible to say without seeing data (logs) -- there are many variables that could impact scan times (as listed in my original reply).

So, it would be difficult to compare Computer A to Computer B.

 

 

Cheers,

 

daledoc1