Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 9274 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
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

Exclude subdirectories

ttl

I am trying to put in the exclusions defined in Microsoft's document here:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822158

However, under the section "Turn off scanning of SYSVOL files" it states

Exclude the following files from this folder and all its subfolders:

  • *.adm
  • *.admx
  • *.adml
  • Registry.pol
  • *.aas
  • *.inf
  • Fdeploy.inf
  • Scripts.ini
  • *.ins
  • Oscfilter.ini

   There are literally dozens of GUID-named folders within some of the directories. How can I put in these exclusions?

:39447


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Hello ttl,

    sorry for suggesting something you've already tried - wasn't clear to me from your post you were looking for a "second opinion" :smileywink:

    Was about to reply yesterday but decided to mull over it. I'm sure we're not the only customers facing this issue - taking it at face value I agree. OTOH - there are articles and tools for virtualized environments (e.g. the Virtualization Scan Controller) and I'd expect at least a little of something if these problems were more widespread.

    Scanning naturally causes a non-negligible overhead - but this applies to normal operation as well. Now, Windows updates are not know to be unobtrusive and in the course of updating there's often quite some additional file system activity which keeps the scanner occupied. If your guests are usually only under light load and your hosts moderately busy you'll likely "feel" the impact. If your hosts are already fairly busy the effect might not be dramatic though. 

    CPU is only one indicator. Back then, on the mainframe (with virtual guests) 100% CPU were ideal (of course if you met throughput, response times and so on) - it showed that did not "waste" cycles you have bought. Indeed, CPU usage dropping to 95% usually indicated real and severe contention, and then you had a problem.   

    Sorry for digressing ... what apart from the CPU spikes are the problems? Unresponsive systems? Delays?

    Christian

    :39613
Reply
  • 0

    Hello ttl,

    sorry for suggesting something you've already tried - wasn't clear to me from your post you were looking for a "second opinion" :smileywink:

    Was about to reply yesterday but decided to mull over it. I'm sure we're not the only customers facing this issue - taking it at face value I agree. OTOH - there are articles and tools for virtualized environments (e.g. the Virtualization Scan Controller) and I'd expect at least a little of something if these problems were more widespread.

    Scanning naturally causes a non-negligible overhead - but this applies to normal operation as well. Now, Windows updates are not know to be unobtrusive and in the course of updating there's often quite some additional file system activity which keeps the scanner occupied. If your guests are usually only under light load and your hosts moderately busy you'll likely "feel" the impact. If your hosts are already fairly busy the effect might not be dramatic though. 

    CPU is only one indicator. Back then, on the mainframe (with virtual guests) 100% CPU were ideal (of course if you met throughput, response times and so on) - it showed that did not "waste" cycles you have bought. Indeed, CPU usage dropping to 95% usually indicated real and severe contention, and then you had a problem.   

    Sorry for digressing ... what apart from the CPU spikes are the problems? Unresponsive systems? Delays?

    Christian

    :39613
Children
No Data