CraigF 0 Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Hi, We run monthly malware scans on our servers. From our Hyper-V replication log (*.hrl), we've observed that these scans result in 40+ GB of disk writes on the System volumes. These writes need to be replicated to the Hyper-V Replica server, which is problematic for remote Replica servers. From this post - https://forum.eset.com/topic/12397-what-data-eset-writes-to-ssd-and-how-to-minimize-it/ - it appears that ESET pages a lot of its scan processing to disk, which probably explains this phenomenon. Given that article is over 6 years old, I thought it worth checking whether ESET has any new settings that we can adjust to reduce the amount of disk write activity it generates when scanning. Thanks, Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Marcos 4,694 Posted May 8 Administrators Share Posted May 8 Please try disabling scanning of archives. If you have many iso files or other disk images on the disk, it takes time to unpack and scan the files inside and it generates a lot of disk writes too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigF 0 Posted May 9 Author Share Posted May 9 Thanks for the prompt response, Marcos. To clarify, I should disable this setting: Detection engine, Malware scans, Threatsense parameters, Objects to scan, Archives but not Self-extracting archives. I will give your suggestion a go and report back once I've re-tested the scan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Marcos 4,694 Posted May 9 Administrators Share Posted May 9 Well, if you have a lot of bigger executable installers then you might want to try disabling SFX archives to minimize writes during a scan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigF 0 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 Hi Marcos, running a scan overnight after disabling scanning of Archives and Self-extracting archives still resulted in a 5GB HRL file, but that's a big improvement on 40+GB, so your hunch was correct. Thanks, Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.