Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guys can we please tone the language down a notch and cool down slightly, This is a discussion board not an insult mud-slinging forum ;)

 

I can understand your frustrations but there is no need for name calling and getting angry.

 

We will make no useful progress unless we try to co-operate with each other :unsure:

Edited by MAPKOBKA^^

Share this post


Link to post
Guys can we please tone the language down a notch and cool down slightly, This is a discussion board not an insult mud-slinging forum ;)

 

I can understand your frustrations but there is no need for name calling and getting angry.

 

We will make no useful progress unless we try to co-operate with each other  :unsure:

I agree 100%, absolutely no need for this and if this continue's the thread will be closed......................................which would be a pity!

Share this post


Link to post
I agree 100%, absolutely no need for this and if this continue's the thread will be closed......................................which would be a pity!

Don Pelotas, you seem to be 'well connected' with Kaspersky Support - are you in a position to pass on to them the very real concerns of KIS/KAV users who have reported their iSwift-related defrag/chkdsk problems through this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Don Pelotas, you seem to be 'well connected' with Kaspersky Support - are you in a position to pass on to them the very real concerns of KIS/KAV users who have reported their iSwift-related defrag/chkdsk problems through this thread?

Yes, i'm, but if you look through the whole thread you will see that project manager (actually former, because he's now heading the 7.0/8.0 development) has already posted in this thread. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Pay attention ~~sniped~~.

 

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=277671

 

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=277724

 

~~Sniped~~  We know the cause of the symptom; we just don't know how to fix it.  The symptom persists after KAV/AVS is removed because of the residual extra data written to the index files.

 

what am i sposed to be looking at?

 

i read pages 1-5 then 11-14, and anyone who has found index errors, is running chkdsk in read only mode., this is normal for errors to be found as files that are updated during the chkdsk do not match the volume bitmap, and so it records it as a corrupt index.

 

i also read that the people who had issues doing chkdsk in rd only mode, then did a chkdsk in locked volume (offline mode) and did not find any errors.

 

 

i just started a chkdsk in read only just now, and there is no 30 second stall, it moved from 0% to 5% within the space of 7 seconds, there is a stall at 28%, but that is normal as within that space of the drive is the first copy of the volume bitmap, it is still scanning, and actually, that stall is on any ntfs formated drive, whether it has an AV installed or not.

Share this post


Link to post
I also have the slow start of stage two of chkdsk on my machine, I have a 400gb hard drive and a Nvidia Nforce 4 chipset (A8N SLI Premium) using the 6.86 drivers, a X2 4800 AMD  cpu with 2gig OCZ Platinum ram, and a evga 7800GTX graphics card using the 84.21 drivers and am using KIS 6.0.1.411, I have witnessed no file corruption, on the last chkdsk I had 5 inconsistencies which were cleaned up, yes kaspersky does cause a slow start to this but it still counts up as it should with maybe a 30 second delay, I also have long delays in file checking due to the amount on my drive I suppose but that was there before KIS and that never bothered me, I cannot see any signs of damage being done thus far. Maybe the data on what files have been opened/scanned etc read by iswift/ichecker cause this because windows cannot easily access them due to something kav does to protect them even before windows boots, but I do find running perfect disc helps with the metadata defragmentation, maybe that's why I do not have such a long wait as some on stage two. I am no expert but I see no harm done and am not particularly worried about this. As far as Acronis I had problems with it restoring long before I had KIS 2006 installed and even after validating the .tib files it would not restore as it would say the files were corrupt when they were needed  :angry:  , hence I am trying to get a refund on that particular product. No software is perfect.  :rolleyes:

 

the SATA/PATA drivers (6.66) (O.o devils number) in the Nforce 6.86 kit is flawed in the fact it causes SATA and SATARAID corruption, it also is known for read and write caching corruption, this is fixed in later revisions... 6.95 is the latest version and generally runs faster in caching operations without the corruption issue.

 

i make the nforce unified remix's and i actually dumped SWIDE 6.66 within seconds as i lost my ASPI interface

 

6.67 which was apart of a leaked kit on station drivers fixed most of the issues within 6.66, i do suggest getting your hands on one of my remix's and installing the IDE drivers from it, SWIDE 6.95 is a non whql release, recieved directly from nvidia support for use on Nforce 2 - 5

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>Sorry for our silence. We've tried to reproduce this problem after the first publication but without success. So, I've just re-sent this case to the test-lab again but if you have any info: step-by-step case, logs or other info - send it to us.<snip>

Don Pelotas, I assume you're referring to this post from grnic. If he has moved on to better(?) things, has he taken the problem with him or has it just been 'parked'? The number of posts on this and other forums suggest the unsatisfactory iSwift/CHKDSK interaction is not as rare as was first assumed by Kaspersky.

Share this post


Link to post
in comparison, it is still less then 1% of the userbase who have this issue.

But, for that 1% it would be an issue. ;)

 

Don Pelotas, I assume you're referring to this post from grnic. If he has moved on to better(?) things, has he taken the problem with him or has it just been 'parked'? The number of posts on this and other forums suggest the unsatisfactory iSwift/CHKDSK interaction is not as rare as was first assumed by Kaspersky.

I think it's easy to get the impression that this is a bigger issue than it is especially if one suffers from any issue's. If this was anything big.......(in numbers i mean, not how annoying, so get me wrong), then there is no way there wouldn't be more (a lot more) complaining of issue's. 6.0 was released a year ago (in 7 days) and if there are so fundemental issue's as some posters see's it, there would be more serious/grim outlook than there is for 6.0 at this point where success is bigger than ever.

 

I will see if i can get the testing dept to expand on what/if they found during this long periode. :)

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>I will see if i can get the testing dept to expand on what/if they found during this long periode.  :)<snip>

Thank you Don Pelotas - please keep us posted! Although, due perhaps to disc size or file numbers, only a small proportion of KIS/KAV users may be affected by this problem (or just realise they are), it is a real worry that the Windows disc repair tools such as CHKDSK may not function when they are really needed.

Share this post


Link to post

I've spoken with Kulich from the testing dept and he says they can't reproduce this, if you think you have something which could help them then please contact him via PM, he would appreciate info/logs etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I just wanted to mention that I recently upgraded to ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite version 7, which I believe uses the KAV 6 engine, and I am now experiencing the CHKDSK bug.

 

I did a bit of testing: First I restored from a previous image, then I tested CHKDSK before upgrading ZoneAlarm to v7, then after the upgrade, and then after running a full virus scan. The long CHKDSK delay came into existence right after I completed the first full virus scan of Drive C. Uninstalling the ZoneAlarm suite did not resolve the problem.

 

See my thread on the ZoneLabs board (I'm Zulu):

http://forums.zonealarm.com/zonelabs/board...essage.id=21216

 

(Details of the tests I performed):

http://forums.zonealarm.com/zonelabs/board...essage.id=21239

 

I also tried downloading PerfectDisk and running the various defrags that it offers, but there was no improvement.

 

I read through this entire thread, but one thing that I didn't find was any sort of an explanation or even a testable conjecture as to what specifically might be causing this situation. So, if anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears!

Edited by Dantz

Share this post


Link to post
I read through this entire thread, but one thing that I didn't find was any sort of an explanation or even a testable conjecture as to what specifically might be causing this situation. So, if anyone has any ideas, I'm all ears!

 

See these messages for an explanation of what causes the situation:

 

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=277671

 

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=277724

 

KAV adds information to the index files and/or rearranges them on the disk and that causes the CHKDSK stage 2 delay. KAV does not remove this informaiton and/or restore the indexes to the way they were after it is uninstalled. Thus the symptom persists after KAV is gone.

 

Unfortunately we are back to the original "we cannot reproduce the symptoms; please send us your logs" which leaves us stranded. There are no logs which are relevant and exact descriptions of how to reproduce the symptoms have been posted many times.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, I couldn't get your links to work, but thanks for the summary. (Pretty sure I read them earlier, but I guess I didn't retain it all.)

 

I have to wonder why certain systems seem to be more susceptible to these index modifications, since obviously everyone must be getting the same index mods, yet only certain people report chkdsk problems. Perhaps we should all compare notes on our systems and look for common features.

 

As far as actual solutions go, I'm no Mark Russinovich, but I do have a couple of ideas. I don't have a clue how to manipulate the various NTFS indexes directly (and this proves that I am not associated in any way with the makers of Dantz Retrospect), but maybe we can make the indexes do what we want by doing things to the files that they're pointing to. I wonder if a repair installation of Windows XP, done right over the existing installation, would do any good? If most of the OS files are replaced, wouldn't the indexes have to rebuild themselves, at least as far as those files are concerned? Quite a few thousand files there. (Then we get to redo all of the windows updates, what fun.)

 

As for the rest of the files on C, (i.e. Program Files, data, etc.), many of them are just sitting there, even on a live system, aren't they? First we have to figure out which non-Windows files can be safely moved or deleted from a live system, then we move all possible files off the drive, then we move them back on again. Or, to make sure the indexes have completely "let go" of the files, we back them up onto another drive (maybe even a FAT32 drive if that would help), delete the original files, and then restore from the backups. (I would do it in safe mode to minimize all possible interference from running programs.) Or, we don't even bother going to another drive, we just put copies of all the files in a temporary folder, then restore from the copies. Or do it with gigantic zipfiles. Anyway, you get the idea.

 

As far as data on other partitions goes, same thing. Move or delete it, then restore from a backup. Presto, we've "laundered" the files, and they get new index entries. I think. (Has anybody tried any of this stuff yet?)

 

Well, I'm full of crazy ideas, but there's no real substance at this point. I do, however, have some good backup images and a couple of internal hard drives with plenty of space, so maybe I'll give some of this stuff a try and see if I can get anywhere. If I get any worthwhile results I'll post them to this thread.

 

If anyone actually knows something about how NTFS indexing works and/or has any ideas on how this idea might be refined to make it work better, or just wants to let me know that this is all totally nuts and can't possibly work, please post!

Share this post


Link to post
Hmmm, I couldn't get your links to work, ]
Sorry. Should have been:

 

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showt...71entry277671

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showt...24entry277724

 

Some of your ideas should probably work. I kind of like the one about switching the partition to FAT32 and back again. I wonder how long that would take? Anyway, thanks for trying to help. It's really tiresome when people who don't have the problem try to hijack the thread.

 

Just to be clear, there is no corruption of the indexes, no data is compromised and the only symptom is the stage two CHKDSK pause. For most people it's just an annoyance, but for others it's a deal breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
I kind of like the one about switching the partition to FAT32 and back again.  I wonder how long that would take? 

Yes, I've been considering converting the entire C partition to FAT32, and then back to NTFS. I'm pretty sure Partition Magic can do that, but it sounds tricky. I think XXclone can also do it, in a more roundabout way.

 

Just to be clear, there is no corruption of the indexes, no data is compromised and the only symptom is the stage two CHKDSK pause. 

Not quite. I didn't mention it in this forum, but in my ZoneAlarm thread I did state that since this problem began I sometimes get a program error when I try to run a Check Disk of C in Windows in read-only mode. Not that using Check Disk in that manner is all that useful, but it used to work, and now it has become unreliable. It kind of makes me wonder what else might be going on that I just don't know about yet.

 

For most people it's just an annoyance, but for others it's a deal breaker.

It's a total deal breaker for me. I don't want anything messing with my filesystem in such a way that it breaks or even impedes chkdsk. This isn't just a cute, expendable game or something, it's chkdsk, which I consider to be a crucial piece of software. And it's not just a minor software incompatibility we're talking about, it's something that seems to be wrong with my actual filesystem. This is the most important structure on the computer and it needs to be 100% reliable, not just "probably, seems like it, don't worry about it", which is the message I am hearing in some of the other posts.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'll let you know how my testing comes along.

Share this post


Link to post

My testing so far is looking promising. I just deleted half of the data files from drive D, which cut the Phase 2 chkdsk lag time roughly in half for that drive. Then I restored all of the deleted files from a zipfile backup, and the chkdsk lag time stayed the same, i.e. it didn't increase back to its former level.

 

So - at this point, my "data laundering" concept seems to be working. The idea here is that when files are deleted their MFT index entries are also removed, and when the files are restored from backups, new index entries are created that don't have any Kaspersky stuff attached to them.

 

The next test will be to run a Windows Repair Install to see if the replaced Windows files get fresh index entries. If that works (and I think we'll be able to tell right away by seeing a reduction in the chkdsk lag time), then the next step after that will be to delete as many non-Windows files from Drive C as possible and then restore them from a backup.

 

Would anyone here like to take this one on? I'm a little short on time at the moment... Although I will be probably be able to get to it in a couple of weeks if there are no takers.

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>Unfortunately we are back to the original "we cannot reproduce the symptoms; please send us your logs" which leaves us stranded.  There are no logs which are relevant and exact descriptions of how to reproduce the symptoms have been posted many times.<snip>

At Don Pelotas' suggestion, I did send some O&O Defrag logs which illustrated the pre- and post-KIS defrag problem, together with a detailed system configuration report, to a member of the Kaspersky Support team; but just received the same response jmorlan refers to above.

 

I really feel that Kaspersky should be offering a tool to remove the additional file data added by iSwift, even if they can't themselves replicate the defrag problem. Those of us who have experienced it feel justifiably concerned that the Windows disk repair tools may not work when really needed, and I have no doubt that it is a problem introduced by the KIS/KAV iSwift component.

Share this post


Link to post
At Don Pelotas' suggestion, I did send some O&O Defrag logs which illustrated the pre- and post-KIS defrag problem, together with a detailed system configuration report, to a member of the Kaspersky Support team; but just received the same response jmorlan refers to above.

 

I really feel that Kaspersky should be offering a tool to remove the additional file data added by iSwift, even if they can't themselves replicate the defrag problem. Those of us who have experienced it feel justifiably concerned that the Windows disk repair tools may not work when really needed, and I have no doubt that it is a problem introduced by the KIS/KAV iSwift component.

 

 

Well I decided to give Kaspersky a try again, after my discontent with the iolo problem. And lo and behold, my disk is extrmely fragmented after one scan!!! And without an explination or a way around it I guess it is time for a re-image. I can concede that I should have disabled iSwift/iChecker but since these are on by default I believe they should be seriously addressed. This is NOT acceptable as a top-tier AV.

 

Here is a screen capture from diskeeper:

KIS.Frag.jpg.xs.jpg

 

Just for S&G's here is the same screen after a defragment session:

KIS.Frag.After.jpg.xs.jpg

Edited by likuidkewl

Share this post


Link to post

I just did a full test of my data drive, with excellent results. Details: I backed everything up into zipfiles, deleted the entire contents of the drive, then restored the drive from the zipfiles. Results: There is absolutely no Phase 2 Check Disk lag whatsoever. Check Disk jumps from Phase 1 directly into Phase 2, and there are no errors or chkdsk failures. It looks like I have successfully "washed" the Kaspersky checksums out of the indexes for that drive.

 

I'm continuing to explore efficient ways to do something similar to Drive C. A friend suggested booting to BartPE and using Robocopy, and it sounds like an interesting possibility. I'll be testing this soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Dantz, I'm glad you're finding a way of getting rid of the iSwift data; but as likuidkewl says, it's really unacceptable that it is necessary to spend so much time finding a workaround to a problem introduced by Kaspersky software.

Share this post


Link to post

Northpole, please make sure you don't mix up your info.

 

The Diskeeper screenshots you show, can be well attributed to a first full scan, when KAV is building up its report store. Now, the "MFT problem" is something different. Unfortunately, the screenshots show up to unclear for me to check the amount of fragmented system files, but a best guess looks like that it isn't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
<snip>Northpole, please make sure you don't mix up your info.

 

The Diskeeper screenshots you show...<snip>

SSK, not my screenshots - the post to which you refer is actually by likuidkewl

Share this post


Link to post

I have recently tried out the TR of KAV 7 and I also found a lot more fragmented files after the first scan. BUT subsequent scans showed a lot less fragmentation. Probably related to SSK's comment on KAV building up its report store.

 

Overall, I have only seen a slight pause in Phase 2 of chkdsk (<15s) with both KAV 6 or this TR, no file errors but slightly more fragmentation as stated which does improve on later scans.

 

When the gold release is available I will install without ISwift and see what effect this has on both performance, fragmentation and the MFT.

Edited by Blackcat

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to make your experience of our websites better. By using and further navigating this website you accept this. Detailed information about the use of cookies on this website is available by clicking on more information.