Dr. Web Resource Hog

[Antus]

I have a brand new pc compaq 64 bit gig of RAM AMD processor. Thats just for the record. I installed a trial of Dr Web and in checking the resources, I was upset to see how much it consumed. the exec along 23,000K for starters. Well needless to say I uninstalled Dr Web. ......How about your experience with it??? Any input???? In my opinion Dr Web is NOT light.

[C.S.J]

dr.web is super light on performance of pc, extremely close to AVG.

15kb updates max, and low CPU usage.

if you turn on everything and use it all, 25mb will be the max ram usage, with spidermail using about 15mb of that, and the schedular using about 5mb.

if your using a 64bit OS, the spiderguard wont work anyway, as it is yet to be vista or 64bit compatible.

[shorty1]

This is a well known issue that has been discussed numerous times here. The short answer is that Dr. Web is not using the amount of resources indicated by the memory column in task manager. For starters, see here: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=52669&highlight=drweb

[C.S.J]

cheers shorty, thats the thread i was looking for... especially blackcats comments in it.

if you really think dr.web is still a resource hog, i dont really know what else to suggest to you.

[Blackcat]

{QUOTE-> I have a brand new pc compaq 64 bit gig of RAM AMD processor. Thats just for the record. I installed a trial of Dr Web and in checking the resources, I was upset to see how much it consumed. the exec along 23,000K for starters. Well needless to say I uninstalled Dr Web. In my opinion Dr Web is NOT light. <-QUOTE}
Even if any AV took up 23,000K, on your new machine with 1GB RAM, the AV should have little effect on the running of the computer.

IMO, the effect on performance is much more important than memory usage unless you have an old machine.

For example, one of my primary AV's is taking up over 50MB VM but it has a negligible effect on the speed of the computer and therefore I would classify it as a very light AV. However, another well-known AV , despite only taking up 8MB VM, is very heavy in real-time on the same computer (different snapshot) and therefore I do not class this one as a "light" AV.

Unless Dr Web is slowing you down in real-time, most users would state that it definitely one of the recommended "lightweight" AV's.

[lodore]

23mb of ram is nothing when you think of what it protects against and the amount of ram pc's have these days.
i mean cmon f-secure used to use 100mb on my pc;D
that did slow me down thou.
what av are you using atm after you uninstalled the dr?
if you think 23mb of ram is alot used i dont think you will be using any AV
the cpu usage is the most important thing along with if you notice any slow down or not.
i very much doubt you will notice any slow down
lodore

[Durad]

Its more important how AV work than how much of memory it uses.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> Its more important how AV work than how much of memory it uses. <-QUOTE}

Says who. Why can't we have both? I don't like the way people with your mindset are developing software. Just because the resources may be available does not mean we should be forced to use them.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Says who. Why can't we have both? I don't like the way people with your mindset are developing software. Just because the resources may be available does not mean we should be forced to use them. <-QUOTE}

agreed just because we have e.g. 1gb of ram and a dual core cpu doesnt mean it should be used by security softwaare.
i think dr web,nod32,kav/kis6.0,bitdefencer,antivir etc etc do there jobs well without hogging resourses
lodore

[C.S.J]

if 25mb ram is too much, (9mb without spidermail) (4.5mb without spidermail and schedular) maybe you should use linux. ;D

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> if 25mb ram is too much, (9mb without spidermail) (4.5mb without spidermail and schedular) maybe you should use linux. ;D <-QUOTE}
or maybe yoiu should try f-secure which about 100mb ram then go back to drweb and relise how much low the memory usage of drweb really is;D
and how much faster the pc is with drweb
lodore

[Krond]

Why does everyone think, the lower Ram-Usage, the better? If I had enough Ram, the machine should use this Ram, so I bought it for.... The second level cache of a CPU should used full, so that the effect is high, too. Why don´t use the Ram full, so that the machine have nothing to load from the disc? So you should use Vista, there is the minimal Ram-usage at 600-700 MB on my machine (2GB RAM), the most of this is cacheing from Vista....and it is good so. You think, that more Ram-Usage is slower performace? :o

Why you bought the RAM, when it should not be taken? Tell me more about myths of RAM-usage please.....:blink:

PS: sorry for my bad english.....

[PhoenixWeb]

I tried Dr.Web a while back, but it caused constant freezing with both Firefox, and Thunderbird. Also when running a full system scan it was using between 90-100% of CPU.

I noticed on the Dr.Web forum there are posts on both of these issues...

It's a shame because other than that, I really liked Dr.Web, and I like what they are about.

I may well try it again in the future, but for now I am sticking with Antivir Personal Premium which runs light with no problems at all.

[n8chavez]

{QUOTE-> Why does everyone think, the lower Ram-Usage, the better? If I had enough Ram, the machine should use this Ram, so I bought it for.... The second level cache of a CPU should used full, so that the effect is high, too. Why don´t use the Ram full, so that the machine have nothing to load from the disc? So you should use Vista, there is the minimal Ram-usage at 600-700 MB on my machine (2GB RAM), the most of this is cacheing from Vista....and it is good so. You think, that more Ram-Usage is slower performace? :o

Why you bought the RAM, when it should not be taken? Tell me more about myths of RAM-usage please.....:blink:

PS: sorry for my bad english..... <-QUOTE}

I'm not really saying this, and, I don't think the others that are saying similar things are either. I do not mean that there is no point to buying RAM, because there is. But there is no point to using that RAM for a on-access security product; there are others that can do the job just as well without the resource requirement. Why use F-secure when you can use NOD32, or Avira, or KAV, or Dr Web. That makes no sense. Use your RAM for more important things. Software developers should get the message by now.

[lodore]

i mean cmon even symantec made nis2007 lighter they finaly listened after all these years
lodore

[C.S.J]

Dr. Web Resource Hog ........

if you dont like it, dont use it ;D

---------
as for my panda vista :) ... its running pretty well, better than the older versions thats for sure, testing its detection at the moment, we shall see.... so far, its good.

[lodore]

TBH the title "dr web resourse hog" did make me laugh;D
he should read the dr web myths http://support.drweb.com/faq/a15/
its a good read and explains that drweb is infact very light on resourses like me and Chris already know;D
lodore

[C.S.J]

a while i go, i would have effed and jeffed at people like that :)

now i just sit back and make my friendly comments *lol*

[lodore]

i just try to make it funny these days;D
lodore

[C.S.J]

btw:just a little note for this dr.web thread

dr.web have to change the icon for the vista version, you cant see the legs on the spider, just a green dot, and it looks a bit pixel-ated too.

looked ok for XP, icon looks poor on vista.

--------
running panda on my vista, its ok ... not bad at all, and cheap too

http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/125047

--------

and a note to dr.web (hi serge :) ), hurry up and get that vista version ready :D

[Malcontent]

{QUOTE->

running panda on my vista, its ok ... not bad at all, and cheap too


<-QUOTE}

How is Panda's detection?

[C.S.J]

panda is weird, it found a similar amount to dr.web, but it renamed loads.

still, its taking care of things, it doesnt slow down anything, and on vista, its hard to see what process is running, maybe 1 at most, but still cant tell which is panda.

its doing its job, and is only a couple of pounds to buy at ebuyer.com, so id recommend it to anyone really.

still prefer my dr.web so they better hurry up with my vista version :D

but this panda 2007, is a good substitute for sure.

[Mongol]

{QUOTE-> panda is weird, it found a similar amount to dr.web, but it renamed loads.

still, its taking care of things, it doesnt slow down anything, and on vista, its hard to see what process is running, maybe 1 at most, but still cant tell which is panda.

its doing its job, and is only a couple of pounds to buy at ebuyer.com, so id recommend it to anyone really.

still prefer my dr.web so they better hurry up with my vista version :D

but this panda 2007, is a good substitute for sure. <-QUOTE}

I agree, I have Panda on both boxes now since the DrWEB Anti-Spam renewal scandal and am pretty happy with it. Unless DrWEB comes up with some happy solution this may be how things stay here at the ranch...:shifty: ;D

[n8chavez]

Has anyone seen the minimum requirement for disk space? It's crazy. No AV in the world should take 150 mrg. I know, that might not be the space used, but it is a lot higher than 8.5 meg with Dr Web.

[Mongol]

{QUOTE-> Has anyone seen the minimum requirement for disk space? It's crazy. No AV in the world should take 150 mrg. I know, that might not be the space used, but it is a lot higher than 8.5 meg with Dr Web. <-QUOTE}

It's a bit on the big size but those Panda's get to be pretty big when full grown...:o :D ;D