Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Second and subsequent launches of applications, a sense of hogging

Quoting from Paul Ducklin's comment beneath Yes, you need anti-virus on your Mac.. and now it's free

We only re-scan files on-access if either the file has changed or the anti-virus has updated since it was last accessed. … know when a file changes, because our kernel driver monitors file system access, read and write, and we know how to identify each file system object uniquely. … minimises overhead, and has helped our products - on all platforms - avoid the "notorious hog" label …

Quoting from Another slowdown:

> Whenever I launch … cpu usage rockets to extremely high levels and

> … takes ages to launch

… countless .JAR files … zip files with a collection of java .class files … often thousands.

If you have archive scanning enabled in the on-access settings then the scanner has to intercept the … request for the .JAR file, uncompress it in memory, scan all on the .class files inside, and then pass back the file open request … not the quickest thing in the world as there are often so many files inside the .JAR.

Running the On-Access scanner without it scanning in archive files doesnt reduce your protection, any files accessed within an archive are scanned, and if you were to manually open, for example, a zip file its contents are scanned at this point.

I hope this helps to explain a little as to why you saw the slow down.

Puzzle

I might expect hogging just once, when an application is first launched following installation of Sophos Anti-Virus, but why should there be a sense of hogging every time that application is launched?

Does every additional virus identity (IDE) file — additions may be hourly — cause the entire contents of an .app to be rescanned when that .app is next launched? 

Postscript

When I tried to reply beneath Paul's comment, the commenting system used at nakedsecurity.sophos.com failed to work with OpenID. 

:1000355


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • On a brand new MacBook Air,  a Java application that I restart repeatedly takes 3-4 minutes to start because of InterCheck (presumably, every time a new definition file is downloaded).  I consider that unnaceptable as default behavior.  The fact that the same application doesn't take so long when I run it on a faster computer doesn't make it any more pleasant on the MBA--which after all is a brand new machine, even if it's not supposed to be fast.  Performance on it ought to at least be acceptable.

    Techies may figure out that Intercheck is causing the problem, and that Intercheck belongs to Sophos.  But most people will just wonder why their computer is so slow.  Some of them might even notice that the slowdown started immediately after installing Sophos.  Given that there are more and more Java applications being used, having full scans of jar files turned on by default if it doesn't protect the user's computer seems like a mistake.

    :1003205
Reply
  • On a brand new MacBook Air,  a Java application that I restart repeatedly takes 3-4 minutes to start because of InterCheck (presumably, every time a new definition file is downloaded).  I consider that unnaceptable as default behavior.  The fact that the same application doesn't take so long when I run it on a faster computer doesn't make it any more pleasant on the MBA--which after all is a brand new machine, even if it's not supposed to be fast.  Performance on it ought to at least be acceptable.

    Techies may figure out that Intercheck is causing the problem, and that Intercheck belongs to Sophos.  But most people will just wonder why their computer is so slow.  Some of them might even notice that the slowdown started immediately after installing Sophos.  Given that there are more and more Java applications being used, having full scans of jar files turned on by default if it doesn't protect the user's computer seems like a mistake.

    :1003205
Children
No Data