hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to dantz
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
said by dantz  :So, when chkdsk starts running strangely or even fails, I would think that you might want to sit up and take notice. I don't think it is running strangely, nor has it failed.
This is just an educated guess but on my system the brief delay occurs prior to chkdsk reporting the percentage complete for that stage. My guess is that it is just taking a little longer to enumerate all the structures before it begins examining them. If chkdisk were finding inconsistencies Winlogon would report them in the application log but what I find upon examination is perfectly consistent with what one could expect on a system without KAV6.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus |
|
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to dantz
said by dantz :I consider chkdsk to be a rather important little program, since it is a built-in tool that is capable of both examining and repairing the NTFS filesystem. Sometimes this little utility can be incredibly useful, especially when the chips are down and you really need it to work. So, when chkdsk starts running strangely or even fails, I would think that you might want to sit up and take notice. I agree. There are plenty of anti-virus programs out there, but only one CHKDSK. There was a time when there were a number of third party "disk doctor" applications available, but with NTFS, CHKDSK is the only game in town. Yes, there are others, but as far as I know, they are merely shells that run on top of CHKDSK. |
|
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| reply to dantz
said by dantz :You are misinformed. Scheduling chkdsk to run after a reboot is a perfectly valid way of using that utility, and if you aren't getting good results when you do that then there is something wrong with your filesystem or your hardware. No, I'm not misinformed, the "standard" chkdsk built into Windows is not a thorough chkdsk as running it with the command line chkdsk /r. Read HERE about the different command line parameters, they differ quite a bit in what they do and how thorough they are.
 |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI | So? What is your point? command line chkdsk /r has the Kaspersky problems. |
|
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Dr Tweak
Sorry but it's the same CHKDSK with the same command-line parameters available whether run from at boot after or from the recovery console. If run "normally" with the /f parameter on a partition that cannot be locked, it will run at boot. Same with the /r parameter which does a full scan of the disk.
You are implying that there is another version of CHKDSK with different options available which runs from the recovery console. There isn't. It's the same version that runs at boot when the /f or /r parameter is specified on a drive that cannot be locked.
And it's the same CHKDSK that pauses for 10 minutes before starting Stage 2 on my system which has been affected by KAV/AVS "NTSF-identifiers." This lag occurs on affected systems any time CHKDSK is run including when it runs at boot, from a command window, or from the recovery console.
If you care about the future of Kaspersky, I suggest using what influence you may have to get them to provide a removal tool for these unwanted NTFS-identifiers. It's time they step up to the plate and take proper care of their customers. I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| said by jmorlan :If you care about the future of Kaspersky, I suggest using what influence you may have to get them to provide a removal tool for these unwanted NTFS-identifiers. It's time they step up to the plate and take proper care of their customers. I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. Kaspersky has known about the problem according to sasso's post on page 11 of the KAV thread since the early days of the 2006 beta. They believe the problem is Microsoft's responsibility to fix. Never mind that it is Kaspersky's NTFS-identifiers that cause the problem. It appears there is buck passing here and that may be why we haven't gotten a tool.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
I'm ass-uming this is using KAV 7, as I have KAV6 installed on 5 of my machines and have never even seen ISwift.
Knew there had to be another reason for not updating to newest version. 
This could rather devaststing for Kaspersky's reputation, whether it's their fault or not! |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
1 edit | reply to jmorlan
said by jmorlan :I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. LOL!  What are they supposed to do? Read users minds? See through their eyes? And explain to me how they are supposed to fix an issue they cannot reproduce.
Edit: Just a side note. I have no doubt that the support issues encountered by Kaspersky Labs are vastly more complex than anything I experienced while supporting hpHOSTS, yet I am not unfamiliar with trying to find the cause of inexplicable issues. In the years I maintained hpHOSTS I had a small handful of folks who claimed the hosts file didn't work at all. I'd have them check for malware - no infections or residuals. I'd have them verify hosts was installed correctly. It was. I'd have them verify that system configuration settings related to hosts were correct and optimal and even wrote a tiny utility to make the task easy for them (and me). After all that they still claimed hpHOSTS didn't work even though they could not offer a single shred of evidence in support of their claim. In the end I was pretty much forced to conclude one of a few things about the user.
1) The user was lying.
2) The user was a publisher of another hosts file (happened three times).
3) The user was a drama queen.
4) The user was an idiot.
5) All of the above.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to cork1958
ISwift and IChecker were introduced in KAV 2006 to replace IStreams that was in 2005 and that caused such a heated outcry because ADS tags were appended to all files on the user's system and were NOT removed by the KAV uninstaller when KAV was removed. IStreams wrecked havoc if one was using System Restore. I had extremely heavy fragmentation of XP Pro very rapidly (within a day or two of defragging) and most of it was in System Restore and the restore points were all unusable. IStreams was created so that people would buy KAV as it made scanning faster...but at great cost. After the public outcry Kaspersky came up with ISwift and Ichecker instead (again designed to speed up KAV's slow scanning so people would buy it).
I can't post a screen shot because I haven't had KAV since last November. But go to the screen where you configure the on demand scanner. You will see two boxes that are checked by default. One is for IChecker and the other is for ISwift. It won't do any good to uncheck them now as the damage is done forever on the first full on demand scan if those boxes remain checked. There is no way to remove the meta data that Kaspersky has placed on your files either if you ever decide to uninstall KAV. So, I hope you really like KAV.
And, yes, ISwift is in KAV 2007 (even with all the complaints it is still there) but it was first introduced in 2006.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to hpguru
said by hpguru :said by jmorlan :I'm frankly tired of hearing "We cannot reproduce the symptoms, send us your logs." That's a dead-end leaving the users in the lurch. LOL! What are they supposed to do? Read users minds? See through their eyes? And explain to me how they are supposed to fix an issue they cannot reproduce. Phooey.  "Read users minds" my foot...what do you call 18 pages of posts in the KAV forum where users are begging Kaspersky to do something about this?
Sorry, but Grnic was just doing damage control in that post. Kaspersky developers have known about the problem since the early days of 2006 beta testing. They have stated that they believe Microsoft should fix Chkdsk rather than Kaspersky having to come up with a different idea to speed up scanning so folks will buy KAV. That's known as "passing the buck". What Kaspersky may not have known about, or suspected, but chose to look the other way and hope their suspicions were wrong, is the purported corruption done to files and to chkdsk itself so that, eventually, in some cases it won't run at all.
But as for chkdsk hanging for a long period somewhere in stage two that they have known about for ages but cleverly claim it is a Microsoft problem. I fail to understand that reasoning at all. If a Microsoft OS program works as intended until Kaspersky comes along with some cockeyed notion about adding meta data to files to speed up Kaspersky's notorious slow scanning especially noticeable on less powerful computers and then that Microsoft program stops working properly, and in some case stops working altogether, and it happens to be an essential program then how is that Microsoft's fault?
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to hpguru
said by hpguru :
LOL! What are they supposed to do? Read users minds? See through their eyes? And explain to me how they are supposed to fix an issue they cannot reproduce.
The larger design philosophy question is whether they should be approaching the problem in the way they have in the past few versions.
Personally, I'd vastly prefer an approach that does not leave extensive system changes after removal of the product, even if they are supposedly benign. There's enough anecdotal information about to speculate that there are some combinations of circumstances in which problems arise, that should be enough to give them pause.
For the record, I have KAV WKS installed on a number of machines, iSwift/iChecker is enabled, and I have not noted problems. However, if i remove KAV at some future date, it would be nice to know that the product does not leave residual footprints with an uncertain impact. This is basic courtesy to the customer base.
Blue |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :Phooey. "Read users minds" my foot...what do you call 18 pages of posts in the KAV forum where users are begging Kaspersky to do something about this? Mele perhaps if you'll read my comment again you will see I was responding to a specific comment made by jmorlan . Then again, probably not.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Yes, I realize the specific comment you were responding to...but I don't see what that has to do with my response to you...how does your pointing out that you were responding to jmorlan's comment invalidate my observation? I assume you have read the Kaspersky thread where jmorlan says the same but elaborates...but then again maybe you haven't.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| reply to jmorlan
Did you even read what I posted? I didn't imply what so ever that there is another version of chkdsk, just that running it with the /r command is much more thorough. And again, I have installed KAV hundreds of times and when a client brings their computer to my shop for a "tune up" a full chkdsk /r is run from the Recovery Console and NEVER have I seen a slow down or problem with it.
|
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :Yes, I realize the specific comment you were responding to...but I don't see what that has to do with my response to you... Not surprising.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus |
|
Dr Tweak
join:2004-09-23
Chesapeake, VA
| reply to StraitShoot
OK, after reading through the thread on KL forum I think I might have more insight on the cause..... system restore. I ALWAYS disable system restore on all the computers I work on and have never seen this issue. Personally I think system restore is useless and a waste of system resources, just my opinion. In any case I think it's directly related to having system restore enabled.... those of you who have seen this issue, was system restore enabled? And for those of you who think MS is always right.... there is a glitch I have seen with system restore MANY times. If you only disable system restore by right clicking on My Computer - system restore - and checking the option to disable it, many times it will not complete disable. You must disable the system restore service as well, if you don't I have seen system restore continue to make restore points and never delete the old ones, it then fills up the entire drive with restore points and there is no disk space left. To fix it you must enable system restore then reboot then disable it and reboot again to delete all of the restore points, the hard is then clear and back to normal. This is a MS problem that has never been addressed.
|
|
jeisenberg
New Year's Eve
join:2001-07-06
Windsor, ON
·Cogeco Cable
 ·Cogeco Voip
1 edit | reply to Dr Tweak
I bumped into this thread quite by accident (I think it must be one of the featured news stories).
Anyway, I recently started using AVS, and a few days ago, my system indicated that a CHKDSK was being run immediately after a reboot.
When the process began, I walked away from my computer and returned a few minutes later only to see Stage 2 at 0% completion. I thought it was strange (actually thought my computer was hung), and I forced a reboot.
When the system started up again, I again saw it get stuck at Stage 2. This time, I just walked away from the machine, and when I returned 30 minutes later, the CHKDSK had already completed.
I had no idea this could have been linked to AVS, and now I am wondering whether I've caused harm to the computers of friends to whom I've recommended this product!
Edit: I also am using System Restore, although I never had a slow CHKDSK before installing AVS. |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to StraitShoot
I've installed Active Virus Shield and have noticed only minimal problems with Chkdsk thus far. Since it was free, I've been willing to put up with slow Kaspersky responses to any technical issues. But the long-term effects of this issue does concern me, and what is more troubling is the way Kaspersky responds to (ignores) such issues.
I didn't agree to have them make ANY permanent changes to my system, and if such changes were to be made, A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE POTENTIAL RISKS IN DOING SO SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, just as one receives drug interaction precautions that DOES NOT say you will experience problems but at least averts you that is a distinct possibility, allowing you to make an informed decision.
Kaspersky has had more than enough complaints about this issue and have been IRRESPONSIBLE in both not fixing it and in hiding this issue from new users.
It seems to me that ALL software manufacturers' should follow the simple rule that one learns when hiking: if you bring it on the trail with you, you take it out with you when you leave. NO software manufacturer should be allowed to get away with ANY product that makes changes that aren't removed when the product is removed. Maybe Kaspersky will need to face a class action lawsuit to make them understand that there can be financial consequences for such decisions. |
|
technovert
Premium
join:2007-06-14
Canada
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to StraitShoot
I'm probably going against the flow here, but Kaspersky has never done wrong by me, I had KAV and now use AOL AVS to save money. Chkdsk is a tool for repairing the ntfs/fat32 file system correct? Something like fsck on *nix based platforms? Am I understanding that Kaspersky is modifying the file system to add these identifiers in and that causes chkdsk to be slower? I don't really have a benchmark to test it against but I can run chkdsk, as for me and my systems, they stay with Kaspersky. |
|
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
Premium
join:2001-02-05
Pacifica, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Dr Tweak
said by Dr Tweak :OK, after reading through the thread on KL forum I think I might have more insight on the cause..... system restore. I tested your theory and removed system restore. Afterwards the Stage 2 CHKDSK delay was 3 minutes, down from about 10 minutes, so it did help. But none of my other computers have any delay at Stage 2 at all. They all start checking indexes within a few SECONDS not MINUTES. None of those systems have ever had KAV/AVS installed. All of them have system restore enabled.
Incidentally, here's a work-around for those with the problem.
Run CHKDSK /I
That option gets my Stage 2 pause down to a reasonable 12 seconds.
But this is still unacceptable. I want an NTSF identifier removal tool. KAV/AVS put the object identifiers in my indexes, they have an obligation to remove them. |
|
