Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'slow down'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • ESET General Forums
    • ESET Announcements
    • General Discussion
    • Forum FAQ's and Rules
    • Submit a virus, website or potential false positive sample to the ESET lab
    • Quick questions by guests (registration not required)
    • WeLiveSecurity.com
  • ESET Home User Products
    • ESET Internet Security & ESET Smart Security Premium
    • ESET NOD32 Antivirus
    • ESET Cyber Security (for Mac)
    • ESET Cyber Security Pro (for Mac)
    • ESET NOD32 Antivirus for Linux Desktop
    • ESET Products for Mobile Devices
    • Web portals
  • Malware Detection and Cleaning
    • Malware Finding and Cleaning
    • ESET Standalone Malware Removal Tools
  • ESET Business User Products
    • ESET Cloud solutions
    • ESET Endpoint Products
    • ESET Products for Windows Servers
    • ESET Products for Linux Servers
    • ESET Products for Mobile Devices
    • Remote Management
    • ESET Enterprise Inspector (EDR)
    • ESET Products for Virtualized Environments
    • Encryption
    • ESET Licensing for Business
    • Other ESET business products
  • ESET Beta Products
    • ESET Beta Products for Home Users
    • ESET Beta Products for Business Users
  • Slovak and Czech forums
    • ESET NOD32 Antivirus, ESET Internet Security a ESET Smart Security Premium
    • Produkty pre mobilné zariadenia
    • Vírusy a iné hrozby
    • Ostatné

Categories

  • Files
    • Early Access
    • EES / EEA 9 BETA
    • Miscellaneous

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Interests

  1. Hello, I have a new computer with ESS8 installed and it seems that it causes slow transfer over the local network. Speeds with ESS8: 3-5 MB/s Speeds with ESS8 uninstalled: 8-10 MB/s I run Windows 8.1 64 bit. and the exact same system and ESS8 (incl. the same configuration) is on my other machine where it works without any problem. My first thoughts were that I have wrong network drivers and I have spent 1,5 day trying to solve this issue. I was thinking that it is sufficient to simply disable realtime protection and firewall. Oh how was I wrong! Right after I have uninstalled Eset Smart Security 8 everything started to work flawlessly and my transfer speeds are back in normal. The same behaviour can be archieved by a simple restart into the safe mode with networking where it works as well because ESS8 is not loaded. I would be very grateful for any suggestions about how to fix this issue. I hope that simple advanced settings tweak could help me, but I have already tried some. Please feel free to contact me in case of any questions. Thanks!
  2. Hello, This is a follow up on this thread: https://forum.eset.com/topic/753-eset-file-security-backup-processes/ Our backup is slowed down to a point where people start arriving in the office before the backup is finished. The only solution I have found to work is by setting: Real-time file system protection > Scan On > File Open to disabled I would rather have exclusions in place, but excluding the Symantec programs path: E:\Program Files\Symantec\Backup Exec\ didn't work Has anyone found a solution for this? Many thanks Jean-Philippe P.S.: Our system is running ERA Agent 6.1.444.0 and File Security 6.0.12035.0 on Windows Server SBS 2008 SP2
  3. Hi, I'm experiencing problems with Eset Endpoint Antivirus (v. 5.0) and virtual machine. I've tryed both VMWare Workstation (v. 7) and Virtual Box (latest release). I have excluded (from real time) the path of virtual machines but when I try to run the VM Pc is very slow. I have disabled the real-time protection and PC is still slow. If I remove AV everything works fine. What can I do to run VMs with AV installed ? Thanks in advance.
  4. Hi all, We are deploying the ERA 6 package on LInux (Debian 7). The ERA server is working fine (it is installed and runs without errors), to start we would like to install the webconsole on the same server (this will be split later on). As we are talking about security, we wanted to have the webconsole running over HTTPS, therefore this is what we did for the web console: Downloading the era JAVA package: wget hxxp://download.eset.com/download/ra/v6/standalone-installers/webconsole/era.war Setup the Java packages: sudo apt-get install openjdk-6-jdk Setup the Apache Tomcat web server (version 6 and newer): sudo apt-get install tomcat7 Copy the era.war file into the tomcat application folder: sudo cp era.war /var/lib/tomcat7/webapps/ Restart the tomcat service to deploy era java file (autodeploy is active): sudo /etc/init.d/tomcat7 restart Install the library libtcnative (used by tomcat APR for the SSL/TLS): apt-get install libtcnative-1 Then, changed following lines in /etc/tomcat7/server.xml: <Connector port="8443" protocol="org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11AprProtocol" maxThreads="200" enableLookups="true" disableUploadTimeout="true" acceptCount="100" scheme="https" secure="true" SSLEnabled="true" SSLProtocol="TLSv1" SSLCertificateFile="OURCRT.crt" SSLCertificateKeyFile="OURKEY.key" SSLCertificateChainFile="OURPEM.pem"/> Uncommenting following line to enable the SSLEngine: <Listener className="org.apache.catalina.core.AprLifecycleListener" SSLEngine="on" /> Apply changes, restarting tomcat with: sudo /etc/init.d/tomcat7 restart Here the webconsole works over SSL/TLS on port 8443 ! As we want to use the standard 443 port for https, we did create an IPTABLES rule to redirect port 443 to 8443: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8443 As we want to make the manager as default web app of the server, we need to add following lines to file /etc/tomcat7/server.xml inside the <Host> section: <Context path="" docBase="era"> <WatchedResource>WEB-INF/web.xml</WatchedResource> </Context> Apply changes, restarting tomcat with: sudo /etc/init.d/tomcat7 restart As IPTABLE rules are not persistent and will be deleted when server restarts, we need to install a program that will allow us to save them and make them persistent. Install iptables-persistent: sudo apt-get install iptables-persistent It will ask you if you want to save actual rules, select "Yes" twice and go on. This program will have created the directory /etc/iptables/ where we will store the saved rules. Right here the webconsole is working, answering to web requests on https://OURIP/(that redirects to /webconsole automatically). The login screens appears (well at least the graphical parts) but the little loading GIF turns for minutes (we usually need to wait 15 to 20 minutes) before showing the fields and buttons ! After the long wait the login screen appears and works fine (the CPU load goes back to nearly nothing) and the webconsole works as it should. Looking to the logs, there seems to be no errors or warnings (not in tomcat catalina, not in eset logs), but CPU load goes up to 100%(long live Java) on one of the cores of the VM...! The VM on which this is all running has a dual core 2,8GHz CPU with 4GB of RAM, which seems to fit the needs (according to documentation). We are really stuck here has we have no idea where the problem comes from... It can come from the era webconsole code as from the tomcat server but we really have no clue ! If anyone can help us out, any idea is welcome.
  5. I have a customer who is having issues with performance and is convinced that it's ekrn.exe causing the problem. I was able to log in and capture a service dump file while it was happening. Anyone who can help me analyze the dump or point me in another direction?
  6. Recently I have found that when a virus sig update triggers a startup scan, it seems to block or at least severely slow my web traffic down to the point that browsers are unusable. Usually I will find the browser tabs have stopped responding and immediately I can check the tray and confirm that I find NOD32 running a startup scan which in turn seems to have been triggered by a virus signature update. If I pause protection suddenly my network traffic returns unfettered. For now I have turned off HTTP protection and that seems to solve it, but of course I am not thrilled to have to do that. Could it be that NOD32 gets backlogged or hung a file scan for a few moments and when it does the network requests are queuing up because of that? At the moment the update-triggered scheduler entry for Startup Scan runs at lowest priority - I am wondering if that needs to be bumped up so that the process doesn't get hung up? Thanks in advance for any input/ideas. Details: Lenovo X1 Carbon with Win 7 x64 w/ NOD32 v.8.0.304 aka latest update as of this writing...
  7. The following issue is a small GUI issue - some time ago I already reported one, but I think this is another issue. At some time I looked at the ESET GUI and it showed me this: So that's certainly wrong as the home tab displays the content of the "computer scan" tab. I created a dump file so if someone from ESET would like to get it just write it in this topic or write me a PM. OS: Windows 7 x64 ESS v 8.0.304.x
  8. An hour ago I got this error code 0x80070652, and it has been quite annoying since then as I have to go through this extremely vast content written on the Internet, and get this – I have not got a single piece of writing I can appreciate. Please make my day! Anyone!!
  9. Hi, I have a client with a four month's old SBS 2011 installation, running ESET for Exchange (2010). There's some strange things happening with email delivery, where an incoming email (from an external source) will be delivered to one mailbox instantly (~1 minute) but another user will get email four hours later, the sample email was sent to two different recipients. I've never seen this behaviour on an SBS 2011, it's not like Exchange is under heavy load (10 users in the business) or the server underpowered (it's got 4 vCPUs and 32 GB of RAM assigned, running as a VM on top of Windows Server 2012 R2 Hyper-V). Is there any way to check if ESET is responsible for these random delays? Any help would be most appreciated. /Paul Schnackenburg
  10. My primary purpose in writing this topic is a complaint, and wondering why after many years with NOD32, I am not informed or prompted about a new upgrade. I upgraded to version 5 in 2012, and as recently as January 2014 when I renewed my license for 4 pc's, nothing ever made me aware that version 5 was no longer the latest version. Why is that? I submitted a ticket almost a week ago about what I believe is a false positive on a download for an established software. Eset did not respond beyond the automated response. When I emailed them inquiring, they said it was a mess up in the ticket routine. Understandable, and they responded right away, requesting 3 log files with information on how to obtain each. In that response email, the first thing it did was inquire if I was using NOD32 version 8 yet. Well, uh...it seems a little late somehow to be asking me about version 8. What happened to informing me of version 6 or 7? So okay, not the end of the world. I upgraded my pc to version 8 while pondering the puzzled look on my face. Today, I went to my wife's laptop (her main computer) to do the same. On arrival at her laptop, I discovered on screen evidence that she had just installed and used Fast Again 2014 & FastFix123 to speed up her computer...because it has been slowing down horribly, presumably largely because of adware and similar. Wish she had asked more succinctly for assistance before plunking down $250 and hoping for the best. But I also wonder why so much is getting past NOD32?...or is it her willingness to trust and click? Despite the cost, unlike so many "cleaner" software and scams out there, this outfit seems to have some legitimacy, but I would appreciating hearing comments from Eset about whether that is the case or not (in forum or by email directly). She worked with them on the phone also, and was informed that Eset needed to have realtime protection...which I assume is in NOD32 (as I vaguely remember enabling what would seem to be the equivalent, and which my wife would not have a clue about disabling intentionally). I noticed on the tags for post categories on this forum, that realtime was listed. And lastly, although I didn't report it on a ticket, I also bumped into a very difficult problem that got by Eset (although it may be that isn't Eset's fault). I was on a site that I trust, and one of their rotating ads fooled me into clicking (my bad). Turns out I allowed it to install a self-replicating adware on my pc. No matter how often I would delete it, it would pop right back up in one or several versions. Fortunately, I found an accurate fix that took me step by step through locating and eradicating all versions at once so it could no longer replicate itself. Although I count that one as my own fault, it still seems NOD32 might have noticed and notified about the content of that installation file before it installed...but then, was there a "file" per se to begin with, or just a stream of data from an online installation routine. Dunno. Some days the term "no brainer" takes on new meaning with me. If there is no automatic notification of new versions, there should be, especially when renewing a license, etc. In the license email, there is a tiny link about what to do after renewing, the following of which takes me to a page that does not inform me in any obvious or direct way that I need a new version. Instead, if I then additionally follow a link to NOD32, I eventually end up at version 8, but still not obviated as something I need to do. I guess what I want is a silver bullet. Nevertheless, if some of this could be addressed, I'd appreciate it. Some of this post is perhaps too vague and too late to address...
  11. Using FSW 4.5.12011.0, we're suffering from slow backups, the biggest problem during VSS snapshotting of the drives. File system activity shows large spikes during the backup process as expected but the data throughput during the backup of the VSS is about 50% of the throughput during the backup of the HDD Since we can't exclude kernel paths e.g. ("\Device\HarddiskVolumeShadowCopy") from realtime scanning, I am intending to try disabling FSW as a pre-backup command and then enabling as a post-backup command. Am I right in thinking that the command: c:\Program Files\ESET\ESET File Security\eshell.exe start batch "&" set status disabled will disable FSW (pre-backup) and then c:\Program Files\ESET\ESET File Security\eshell.exe start batch "&" restore status will re-enable post backup ? (or, alternatively are there any examples of eshell batch files available as .bat) Backup exec also has the option to check the return codes from the pre and post commands and further control the backup job accordingly. Would the above commands give a return code of zero on successful completion? Thanks
  12. Because this topic is about a German magazine a German translation for this is available below the English version. But for replying to this please reply in English. (but If you want you can of course add a German translation to your post) English: It's about the following online article from PC-Welt (the German version of PC-World): original German site English version, translated with Bing Translator How you can read there, ESET was quite good with the protection against malware, but several times the article says that there would be a dramatically loss of performance: (the quotes are loosely translated from the German article, in the article or below in the German text you can find the original ones) You can also see this in the table. (there are points, no seconds!) I marked ESET there with orange, the red mark is important later. (This picture is taken from the Bing translated article, the original table you can find in the article or in the German text below) But beause ESET is known for a a little system load, I couldn't believe it. So I looked at the official test results at AV-TEST. There you can download the Mac OS X test results at "Home User" in an Excel-file. And behold: So there you can see clearly that ESET, that ESET doesn't needs 40 seconds, but only 19 seconds. But another product needs 40 seconds and this is the red-marked Microworld eScan for Mac. And if you now look at the table from PC-Welt, then you can see there 5 points for the copy duration! So it seems to be clearly that PC-Welt mistook ESET for Microworld and the other way round. But this turns 4 places out. And by the way: ESET also had a better protection than Microworld in this test. German: Es geht um folgenden Online-Artikel ("18 Schutzprogramme für Mac getestet") von PC-Welt (die englische Variante ist PC-World): Originale deutsche Seite Englische Version, mit Bing Translator übersetzt Wie dort zu lesen ist, hat ESET zwar mit der Erkennungsleistung gut abgeschnitten, aber an mehreren Stellen wird der angeblich Performance-Verlust heftig kritisiert: Dies wurde auch in der Tabelle deutlich. (dies sind Punkte, keine Sekunden!) ESET habe ich darin mit orange markiert, die rote Markierung wird später wichtig. Da ESET aber bekannt für eine geringe Systembelastung ist, konnte ich dies nicht glauben. Also schaute ich auf die offiziellen Testergebnisse bei AV-TEST. Dort kann man unter "Privat" die Mac OS X-Testergebnisse als Excel-Datei herunterladen. Und siehe da: Und hier sieht man eindeutig, dass ESET nicht 40, sondern nur 19 Sekunden zum Kopieren benötigt. Aber ein anderes Produkt braucht 40 Sekunden und dies ist das in rot markierte Microworld eScan for Mac. Wenn man jetzt in die Tabelle von PC-Welt schaut, sieht man dort eine Punktewertung von 5 Punkten! Es scheint also eindeutig, dass PC-Welt ESET und Microworld einfach mal verwechselt hat. Dies macht in der Tabelle allerdings 4 Plätze aus. Und nebenbei sei noch bemerkt, dass ESET in dem Test auch eine bessere Erkennungsleistung also Microworld hatte. Nebenbei: Die Kopierleistung von Trend Micro stimmt mit dem Original-Testbericht überein.
  13. Whenever I attach a phyically write-protected USB-stick / flashdrive ( yes, there a still some available like Trekstor CS), it takes 'hours' until icons are displayed and folders are accessible. (even if I 'don't care' the NOD32 message when detecting the device). NOD32 latest version 7.0.302.26 various OS ( XP, Vista, W7, W8, 32/64) If I switch off write protection, everything works normal. Can someone verify this experience and probably find a solution? I need this writeprotected stick when I approach unknown computers as a repair tool .
  14. Hello everyone, This will be a long post but I will add a TL;DR version at the bottom. We've got 1048 PC's that we've recently bought ESET Endpoint Security licenses for, we're upgrading from Symantec Endpoint Protection. So after we installed about 400 machines, we realized the machines were getting really slow, hanging, getting bluescreens, and the HDD light is constantly burning / processes running very high. I immediately contact our local South African Eset helpdesk, and they told me to install the new version EES 5.0.2228.1 up from 5.0.2225.0. The remote upgrade didn't work, so I had to start all over again (we don't have an Active Directory, so we install it manually). This made things even worse, PC's with the 5.0.2228.1 version were worse off than before. We already established it wasn't a driver issue. Windows updates were done, all AV updates were done, nothing helps. We took a machine and formatted it completely and just loaded ESET and it still gives intermittent bluescreens. It's not every machine that does that, only about 50 so far. But that's 50 angry people who can't work... I've captured memory.dmp files, even though sometimes they don't leave any memory.dmp files behind, I run DumpConfigurator.hta and simulate a BSOD and then collect the memory.dmp file. I've submitted it to ESET HQ, but they haven't responded yet. The only way I can get the machines to function normally again, is to uninstall ESET. When the processes runs high, and the hard drive light is constantly on, I disable ESET's real-time protection and firewall, and the whole machine goes back to idle. The BSOD error and STOP code I get looks like the follow: Kernel_Data_Inpage_Error Stop: 0x0000007A (0xX0418680, 0xC000000E, 0x232F6860, 0x830D0160) Please, I really don't know what to do anymore. TL;DR We've installed ESET on 400+ machines and getting freezing, hanging blue screen of deaths as a result. Only thing that solves it is removing ESET. See BSOD message above. Any help would be appreciated!
  15. Resolving host names and issues would be relative to your DNS servers,not ESET. Please know what you are talking about. The resolve hostname is ONLY for the Network connections list under Tools > Network connections. It simply means for the connections you are making on said IP address , show what their hostname is as well. ESET doesn't convert this information for you. Your DNS servers do. I do not have the issues you are talking about at all, its apparent i am using different dns servers then you. Try switching to different dns and test. Here is Googles : https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/ Here is OpenDNS which i use: hxxp://www.opendns.com/ Thanks and let us know if your issue persists after switching. You may try other DNS servers closer to your area as well.
  16. For weeks now I have complained about NOD32 AV hogging the CPU - but no solution yet. I have sent in SysInspector-logs and memory dumps. No response from customer service since - they seem to prefer to ignore this problem. This is the situation: - Win XP SP3 with all current patches, 4GB RAM - at random intervals egui.exe freaks out and hogs a CPU core - the eset application (tray symbol) will no longer respond - only a reboot will remedy - most often NOD32 enters gamer mode, although it has been disabled in the settings The problem first arose under Version 6. A re-install and upgrade to V7 did not help. Yesterday I did another reinstall - to no avail. @ESET: this problem has been reported under Win XP, Win 7, Win 8. You seem to have a serious problem building up! Please do something about it!
  17. We are currently using ESET Endpoint v. 5.0.2225.0 on windows 7 64 bit SP1. NOrmally, we have no issues but when we open Nuuo NuClient to view our facility cameras, ESET begins to use more and more processing. I have added the NUUO directory to the exclusions, and tried turning off the Antivirus scanners and real time protection prior to opening Nuuo but ekrn.exe will still peg the processors. Sometimes around 60% but usually it jumps to 99% and stays there. Even when I close the Nuuo client, ekrn.exe continues to use the processing power and can only be reset by a reboot. If I don't open the camera program, ekrn.exe never pegs out like this. I do not see any indications in the logs available thru the client. We didn't have this issue with 4. My machine is two 4 core procs with 8GB of ram and others are having this issue too. Any suggestions?
  18. The following common factors seem to have produced problems this week : Windows updates for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, Old PCs - Celeron and Sempron processors, low RAM, Eset. It seems to me that something in the Windows updates downloads triggered Eset scans - which ran constantly, not stopping. Then because the PCs had low specs, effectively they hung up for a LONG time, and users were unable to use the PCs. MS Outlook in particular was not useable at all. We found this on about a dozen PCs at one place yesterday, all old Celerons. They use Endpoint Security through ERAS. This morning we found the same on 4 old Sempron PCs, at a different place. They use Smart Security. I'm just wondering whether anyone else has found the same problem ? I'm not looking for any fix from Eset, because once we'd managed to complete all the Windows updates, the problems went away.
  19. Hi, I have installed ESET Endpoint Antivirus version 5.0.2214.4 after some time my computer starts, egui.exe will start to process at 100% of CPU usage. It will freeze my PC and can not work with any application. I have attached some screen shots of this issue. Image 1 - Image 2 - Please help. Thanks.
  20. I have tested on a iMac the Eset Cyber Security. The problem is sometimes I feel the system running slow. For instance, when I am running my browser and copying some information to Evernote system freezes for some seconds. When I used Avast Antivirus for Mac reproducing the same condition this not happened. But I do really prefer Eset over Avast, considering Eset offers better protection.
×
×
  • Create New...