HDD LED light and RAM usage

[yongsua]

Hi,after installed the BETA version I realize that my HDD LED light blinks more often than the previous version.Besides,it uses more RAM usage than the previous version.I hope the version 5 can be as light as EAV 4.Thanks.

[SweX]

Hmm... mine is not using more RAM it's at 26MB at the moment 70Mb at most :-\

[yongsua]

-{ Quote: "Hmm... mine is not using more RAM it's at 26MB at the moment 70Mb at most :-\" }-

Mine is using 59-70MB:(

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "Mine is using 59-70MB:(" }-
But that's normal my friend, and it's absolutely not higher than version 4.2 ;)

[yongsua]

-{ Quote: "But that's normal my friend, and it's absolutely not higher than version 4.2 ;)" }-

No.For me,the V4 was much lower than V5.

[Nydarion]

I hope the version 5 can be as light as EAV 4...
Because 70 944 k is too high for a Antivirus :'(
Avast or Antivir = 20 000 k

http://nsa25.casimages.com/img/2011/05/06/110506102200816931.png

[yongsua]

-{ Quote: "I hope the version 5 can be as light as EAV 4...
Because 70 944 k is too high for a Antivirus :'(
Avast or Antivir = 20 000 k

http://nsa25.casimages.com/img/2011/05/06/110506102200816931.png" }-

Wow,yours one a bit higher indeed.

[yongsua]

Hi,I just realize my ESET BETA uses lesser RAM usage.It is just as light as the previous version.Besides,I realize that whenever I initially install any ESET products,the RAM usage that uses by ESET is high.After a few hours or days,its RAM usage will become lesser and lesser.Could anyone explain this?Thanks.

[toxinon12345]

While ekrn.exe RAM average is 80 MB, I dont care.
I hope this can speed up the on demand scanner by 50%

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "I hope the version 5 can be as light as EAV 4...
Because 70 944 k is too high for a Antivirus :'( " }-

So do you feel that it's heavy on your system, do you feel a drag during different tasks?

FYI, version 4.2 had about the same RAM usage so it's not a big change, if any.

For me it's just as light, if not EVEN lighter to be honest :thumb:

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "Hi,I just realize my ESET BETA uses lesser RAM usage.It is just as light as the previous version." }-

Haha.... See that's what I told you ;)

[Coccinelle]

-{ Quote: "Mine is using 59-70MB:(" }-

I run Windows 7 \x64,
and Eset Nod32 4.2 use 60 000Ko Ram.
The new Beta use 71 000 Ko.
Avast and Norton Antivirus use 10 000 Ko.
Can Eset use the same?

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "Can Eset use the same?" }-
No because they are developed differently.

Why do you want ekrn.exe to use 10MB of RAM?

FYI. Ekrn.exe includes all the protection loaded into the memory, and that helps reduce the I/O writes etc..., wich in return makes it run much lighter on the system. :thumb:

FYI. Only because Norton uses 10MB of RAM doesn't make it lighter on the system. ;)

[Coccinelle]

-{ Quote: "No because they are developed differently.

Why do you want ekrn.exe to use 10MB of RAM?

FYI. Ekrn.exe includes all the protection loaded into the memory, and that helps reduce the I/O writes etc..., wich in return makes it run much lighter on the system. :thumb:

FYI. Only because Norton uses 10MB of RAM doesn't make it lighter on the system. ;)" }-
Yes is trouth but Norton is light.;D

[Coccinelle]

-{ Quote: "

FYI. Ekrn.exe includes all the protection loaded into the memory, and that helps reduce the I/O writes etc..., wich in return makes it run much lighter on the system. :thumb:

FYI. Only because Norton uses 10MB of RAM doesn't make it lighter on the system. ;)" }-
Yes i now becous Eset have a 2 proces for all.

[yongsua]

-{ Quote: "
FYI. Only because Norton uses 10MB of RAM doesn't make it lighter on the system. ;)" }-

Agreed.Norton is one of the vendor that trying to lower RAM usage by hiding it by using virtual memory or the pagefile instead of physical memory (RAM).

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "Agreed.Norton is one of the vendor that trying to lower RAM usage by hiding it by using virtual memory or the pagefile instead of physical memory (RAM)." }-

Exactly, not good.

[nodyforever]

Ram 4.2 = 5.0 for me


Scan

v 4.2 - 1h40m

v5.0 - 1h07m

[4L3X]

Memory usage on win7 x64

Old version 4.2 = 58,500 KB
New Beta 5.0.65 = 83,920 KB

Uses more ram , but waaaaaaaaay faster
System is as responsive as not using any AV Suite at all ;D ;D ;D

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "but waaaaaaaaay faster
System is as responsive as not using any AV Suite at all ;D ;D ;D" }-

Indeed, I agree. And it feels like when I'm browsing it goes faster now too.
So they must have made some improvements to the Web-Access module :thumb:

[xxJackxx]

-{ Quote: "While ekrn.exe RAM average is 80 MB, I dont care.
I hope this can speed up the on demand scanner by 50%" }-

^This is what we should be thinking.

Why are people still complaining about RAM usage? I think there should be a setting for people that don't want to use any RAM so it can run entirely from the page file so that all of their RAM is free. I say run as much of it in RAM as possible so it is as fast as it can be. I don't buy RAM for it to sit empty. :wacko:

[Hagla007]

50%? I hpoe you mean 200%. 200% = twice as fast since 100% is 1 or in this case the current scan speed. Bad explanation.

[yongsua]

-{ Quote: "^This is what we should be thinking.

Why are people still complaining about RAM usage? I think there should be a setting for people that don't want to use any RAM so it can run entirely from the page file so that all of their RAM is free. I say run as much of it in RAM as possible so it is as fast as it can be. I don't buy RAM for it to sit empty. :wacko:" }-


Hope you are not talking about me because I already changed my mind.;D :)

[stratoc]

at least 3 of the big runners with super low ram usage only admit to part of it. uninstall the program and you may notice one less svchost.exe running.
As has been said clever use of ram is a better written program. Windows 7, for example is a good at using ram. No point in having 4,8,16 gig of ram with nothing using it, it's still a lot faster than ssd drives and a load faster than traditional hdds.

[toxinon12345]

-{ Quote: "50%? I hpoe you mean 200%. 200% = twice as fast since 100% is 1 or in this case the current scan speed. Bad explanation." }-
why you think my explanation is bad?
Please see
http://images.zawya.com/images/features/100713_esset_01.gif
http://www.eset.com/me/about/press/articles/article/press-2010-eset-update-boosts-engine-scanning-speed/

[xxJackxx]

-{ Quote: "Hope you are not talking about me because I already changed my mind.;D :)" }-

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[bradtech]

I am also running around 70-72MB.. I got the RAM and not seeing any slow downs so I'm not complaining. If it were still the days where we had 64-512MB RAM total I'd worry some. I'd rather see less disk thrashing and lower cpu load with improved scan speeds.