Move to next program without waiting?

[mswarbrick]

Even in unattended mode, if I have several custom programs checked to run, the programs open sequentially, in othere words. program 2 runs only after program 1 is closed, program 3 runs after program 2 is closed and so on. It would sure be nice if there was a setting so it would proceed through the list.

There appears to be a setting for this...
"wait for all child processed to close before moving to the next command" but this only applies to the commands within that one program. It would be nice if there were a global checkbox so that you have certain programs release execution for the rest on your checked list.

Is there a way to do this or is it planned in an upgrade?

[Brink]

Seems like that would cause serious Disk Thrashing/Resource Contention.

Virus/Spyware/Malware scanners feature high disk usage (reads and writes to the Hard disk). It takes time for the disk's head to stop reading here, then move over there and find and index mark, count the sectors till the one we need is under the head and begin to read again. Milliseconds - Yes, but over hundreds of millions of blocks being requested by several programs it adds up (a lot). All that wasted time regrouping to find the next sector can easily triple or quadruple the time it takes to run the scans in sequence. So if you have 5 utilities taking 12 hours to run in sequence, they could end up taking 36 to 48 hours or by running them together at once.

It's a nice thought, but it's not very practical in the real world.

Here are a couple nice wikipedia links that can better explain the situation.
Thrashing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_ ... science%29
Resource Contention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_contention

[Fred]

Hi Guys. Another topic I thought I had replied, but now I see I didn't.

Brink, this feature has been requested many times. I think the techs who requested it are not trying to save time, they are trying to save steps. They start a few scans, forget that machine for a couple of hours, and then they come back and remove any malware found. Two steps for the whole operation instead of two steps for each scan.

I wouldn't recommend this procedure either, but as it turns out, many techs seem to use it. I have to admit, though, it can save time if you're working on many machines at the same time.

The new UVK v7.2 allows to run several instances simultaneously. That should do the trick.

[Brink]

I see what you mean Fred and it is totally awesome that you respond to your user's needs by adding requested features. Still though, Imagine that Program A finds malware - Program B finds the same malware - Program C also finds the same malware. Program A deletes or preforms registry edits etc. then Programs B and C also do what they do. Maybe these fixes are the same and just get repeated unnecessarily, or maybe A, B and C preform fixes that are not compatible with each other - making another mess to have to deal with. It just seems like a best practice to preform tasks in sequence and avoiding the extra bench time. (either increased by thrashing or increased due to splattered registry)

On a positive note: The process could expose a failing drive that got pushed over the edge by all the unnecessary activity.

[mswarbrick]

In response to Fred - I have 7.2 and I don't seem to be able to run concurrent. There is no checkbox to it. It would be nice to check several items and have them all go off at once. What am I missing?

In response to Brink - I appreciate your comment. Your point is valid and makes technical sense and a few years back I used to launch my scans sequentially. I have since changed that approach and, in the real world, here is what I have found...

I average several computers per day...and about five years ago I changed to running my scans concurrently, instead of sequentially. I typically Launch with a script that starts the following all at once: RKill, TDSSKiller, Spybot, Malwarebytes, Hitman Pro, ADWCleaner and Adware Removal Tool.

I found that the time spent on each computer was significantly reduced - partially because I am busy with other computers and I don't have to come back and check if it is ready for the next scan, but I also found that running concurrently did not slow things down as much as might be expected. Overall, the total scan time is less when the apps run concurrently.

As far as the scans stepping on each other - another valid concern - after many years of doing this I have not run into any problem. Sometimes the Spybot program detects a malware, but when it goes to remove it, MBAM has already got it, so Spybot thinks removal failed, but that doesn't really cause me any problem. Occassionally I run into an old XP machine that insufficient horsepower to run things concurrently, and then I run sequentially. Most modern machines handle Ok, except for occassionally one that has a maxed out CPU due to malware. Rkill usually takes care of that or I do it manually and then proceed with concurrent scans.

[wmmiller]

Hi Guys,

“Thrashing” Interesting topic and one that’s been talked about for a long time with many opinions on both sides.

Even though this has been brought up from time to time in various places I often run Malwarebytes, SUPERAntiSpyware and Microsoft Security Essentials/Windows Defender concurrently without giving it a second thought. As far as those three stepping on each other’s toes, I haven’t seen or had any problems with them. I normally run others individually for no particular reason other than that’s how I do it. I also don’t work on as many computers as many of you guys do. I know this comment wasn’t really all that useful but I just felt like chiming in.

Bill

[Charger440]

My problem with running multiple programs is that most programs check the same stuff. I personally think you get better individual performance if you don't 4 programs scanning the same directory at the same time. I know other people like it that way and it's great that Fred gives you guys that option. I just much prefer linear scanning as opposed to parallel scanning.

Jim

[Fred]

In response to Fred - I have 7.2 and I don't seem to be able to run concurrent. There is no checkbox to it. It would be nice to check several items and have them all go off at once. What am I missing?

mswarbrick, Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. The new UVK 7.2 allows you to run several instances of UVK itself, while previous versions only allowed one instance per user section.

That means now you can launch a UVK instance (run UVK), start a scan, launch another instance, start another scan, and so on. This way, the scans will run in parallel.

The reason why I didn't add an option to start a scan and immediately step to the next command is that, if you also select any repair/maintenance options for after the scans, UVK would step into those options before the scans complete, which I'm sure you wouldn't want. I didn't find out a valid solution for this problem.

There are many ways for you to get what you want done. They may be non-standard ways, but they are effective. Aside from the "run several UVK instances" option above, you can use UVK scripts. Here's an example that runs TDSSKiller, MBAM, Ultra Adware Killer, and AdwCleaner simultaneously:

Put UVKPortable in a pen drive.
Create a UVK script in the same pen drive named UAKScan.uvk with the following code:

Code: Select all

 <UAKScan>

Create another script in the same pen drive named MBAMScan.uvk with the following code:

Code: Select all

 <MBAMScan> 

Create another script in the same pen drive named TDSSKillerScan.uvk with the following code:

Code: Select all

 <TDSSKillerScan>

And finally create another script in the same pen drive named ParallelScans.uvk with the following code:

Code: Select all

 <Run>
%UVKExe% -ReadFile "%InstallSourceDir%\TDSSKillerScan.uvk" -Auto
%UVKExe% -ReadFile "%InstallSourceDir%\MBAMScan.uvk" -Auto
%UVKExe% -ReadFile "%InstallSourceDir%\UAKScan.uvk" -Auto
 <AdwCleanerScan>

Then, move the pen drive to the client's PC, and drag and drop ParallelScans.uvk over UVKPortable. You just need to remember to perform the AdwCleaner cleanup operation lastly, or it will reboot the machine before you can finish the malware removal.

If you prefer to use the System Repair section's interface, it's just that easy.

Create the UAKScan.uvk, MBAMScan.uvk, and TDSSKillerScan.uvk scripts above in your pen drive.
Add four custom third party apps as follows:

App 1's name: TDSSKiller scan
Command 1: %UVKExe% -ReadFile "%InstallSourceDir%\TDSSKillerScan.uvk" -Auto

App 2's name: MBAM scan
Command 1: %UVKExe% -ReadFile "%InstallSourceDir%\MBAMScan.uvk" -Auto

App 3's name: UAK scan
Command 1: %UVKExe% -ReadFile "%InstallSourceDir%\UAKScan.uvk" -Auto

App 3's name: AdwCleaner scan
Leave all commands empty.

Check Use unattended mode.

Save your custom apps to ParallelScans.uvksr, in the pen drive.
Then, move the pen drive to the client's PC, and drag and drop ParallelScans.uvksr over UVKPortable. Ensure the AdwCleaner scan app is below the others. Click Run selected fixes/apps, and there you go. Parallel scans.

As you can see, there are many ways to get what you need. They may not be standard ways, but I think they are quite easy to implement.

[Charger440]

That's why I like UVK. Not much you can't do with it and getting better every day!

Thank you Fred!

[FredJClaus]

I must be missing something. If you run a parallel scan with all these programs, how do you prevent them from finding the same malware infection? It's great that they all do, but once program A removes it, won't the rest of them get stuck trying to remove a file that doesn't exist anymore?

[Charger440]

That's why I prefer sequential scans but some people prefer parallel. Actually for me is more about scanning the same malware with multiple apps at the same time. I think it just wastes time.