I've been trying several months of to get BitDefender clarify their CPU usage problem, but their support is terrible for followup replies. See below. (This should serve as a cautionary tale for those on BitDefender trials!)

How does one stop BDSS from checking file access after disabling real-time protection. Basically, that option is not completely working, and I have to terminate the BDSS.EXE process before it stops monitoring file system access.

Tom

----

my original query (July 17):

Hi, I am running into problems temporarily disabling the real-time protection (e.g., running CygWin find with grep). I first unchecked the option and still bdss was consuming a high amount of CPU. I also
exitted BitDefender and still bdss was slowing things down. (I even tried killing bdss.exe which helped a little but still the system was still a little sluggish. Naturally this is not a recommended step.)

How do I get the real-time protection to be completely disabled without rebooting.

Their advice: uncheck Real Time protection is enabled [i.e., they didn't read my message]

my followup 1 (July 18):

Note that I had tried disabling real-time protection in that manner (i.e., right click Bitdefender icon then uncheck Antivirus > Realtime). This is what I meant by "I first unchecked the option and
still bdss was consuming a high amount of CPU".

Is there a known issue about BDSS still consuming excessive CPU during file system operations? Do I have to reboot before, it is effectively disabled? I'd rather not due that as that greatly disrupts
productivity, but I do need my system to be responsive.

Their advice: reinstall [i.e., they are clueless as to the problem]

followup 2 (July 20):

Naturally I'm relectant to reinstall the suite due to the
re-configuration, especially the firewall. Also, I'm pretty sure I ran
into a similar problem when using the BitDefender trial, which I did
unistall and then reinstall. (This is the same exact executable as the
one in the download link, based on diff.)

Note that I did some experimentation and it seems that if the bdss
service (i.e., Scan Server) is restarted, it behaves better with
respect to honoring the disabled status. Unfortunately, the shutting
bdss down requires also shutting down the vsserv service (i.e., Virus
Shield) which leads to delays when using via XP admin Services
command.

For now, I'll use the sledgehammer and kill the bdss.exe process and
restart the service afterwards.

Are there any other alternatives?


Their advice: run thier sysdump utility [i.e., they are totally clueless]

my followup (July 23):

OK, see the attached files, including a screen dump illustrating the
high bbss.exe when real-time scanning was supposed to be disabled.

their response: [nothing]

my followup (Sept 23):

Hey what's going on??? It's been two months now. Surely you must have
been able to find something out.

Note that the BitDefender performance problems are a big sticky point
for me. It's annoying that it consumes so much CPU even when I set the
anti-virus detection to permissive.

their response: [still nothing]

my followup (Oct 7):

t's still consuming a lot of CPU, and I am still waiting for a
courteous response on this!!!

Hi Tom O'Hara,

Did you try BD2008 series? As I noticed, it doesn't consume so many resources. Upgrading is free is you still have a valid license.

Cris.

Thanks very much for the info: I wish BitDefender support mentioned that! BD2008 has a new "gamer mode" to minimize system performance overhead:
http://www.bitdefender.com/PRODUCT-2195-en...urity-2008.html

I'll try it this weekend, as I need to unistall BD10 before installing BD2008. Too bad there's no direct upgrade support in the software.

Tom

Hi Tom O'Hara,

Before installing BDv11, please use the Uninstall Tool to completely remove any traces of BDv10 that might interfere with BDv11. After that, reboot your PC, install BDv11, reboot again and make a full BD Update (again, reboot is recommended after the first update).


There's no upgrade feature, because it would be too much of a hassle. From BDv10 to BDv11 there are too many changes (it simply needs a completely new install). And if this was done automatically, there would be just too many places where it might go wrong (and from there would result nasty bugs). Another reason is that not every user wants to upgrade (because he doesn't want to, or maybe he just can't from various reasons).

It's easier and safer this way. Believe me.

Cris.