Avira Eating alot of Resorces ?

I don't recall having this problem before but Avguard.exe is eating 81 Meg's of memory. its not scanning anything intense and there is nothing running in the background as its a fresh boot.

this is what it looked like at boot up and has climbed to 81 meg's any info would be nice.

 

That's a lot indeed. But you have the Avira suite and ZA firewall? That could be the problem

 

Aye thought the same thing, if you look at the process in the image ZA is NOT on there I Uninstalled it to see if it was the issue. this is what I'm coming up with after everything is running with just Avira in the background. I have never had a issue before with ZA and Avira tho I did have one with Comodo a wile back.


Edit.

Also the Avira firewall was disabled during install so it is not running. and Double checked and windows Firewall is disabled also.

 

mmmm That's weird. did you try a reg cleaner after disabling ZA?

 

Leave it running, it will go down again after a while. It's doing memory optimization periodically, so just wait 10-15minutes and check again.

For me it totals at about ~32MB at the moment (suite with all modules active).

On a sidenote however I want to ask what you'd prefer more:
a) using more memory when it's needed to scan a file and you have free ram available
b) forcing low memory usage at the cost of hd activity (creating temp files) and thus performance and leave your ram unused


OK just now the optimizer kicked in on my system, total usage is now at ~20MB

 

I don't mind the memory usage. but when I'm showing 5-8 megs on my main system and 3 others. and this one is showing 81 megs. it makes me wonder wtf is going on. As for HD thrashing I have Virtual memory shut off as I have no need for it when I'm near the 4 gig mark in XP for crying out loud.

Also with that being said, could be why its so High now that I think of it. Ill have a look into maybe if that's why its siting so high.

 

Avira has slipped considerably at ShadowServer in the last month. Stefan, you are still there, right.

Bitdefender is the one that has showned steady improvement there.

 

No Kaspersky anymore, Jeff?

 

actually yes, on 2 computers. But dont tell anyone please.

 

Haha, I won't

 

A common misconception from someone who doesn't understand the importance of a pagefile. Short and correct answer: let windows manage it.

 

Also, your Commit Charge at boot (452 MB) is a little high, don't you think?

 

I just saw your signature.
What happened to GW?
I'm just curious.
Hugger

 

I don't need windows to manage it on this computer. I have a program that basically does the same thing for the programs that need it. pagefile is not needed on MOST things. page file is nice if you want to have it access your HD to knock things out of memory but the programs that run on this computer I rather keep in memory at all time as the switch is faster that way.

also if you use it its best to set it to a predefined amount my rule of thumb is dub your physical ram. otherwise windows re sizes the damn thing constantly. unless your running 4 gig's then prob 2-3 gig of page is fine other then that its pointless to have it re sized constantly.

No this is a server. It runs 2 game servers along with a few other items at boot including 2 SQL database servers. so no the commit charge is fine.

 

It seems ShadowServer is parsing our logs incorrectly. Most of the stuff we recieve from them is actually detected. No idea what to do about this. Also they had several days of zero detection with Avira when they updated our scanner. That totally screws the statistics.

 

Not to get too far off topic, but Windows DOES need a pagefile for proper functioning of Windows. The pagefile is not like virtual memory back in the Windows 98 days. Read more HERE.

 

Problem has been solved... Can a Mod please close the thread.

 

Did you switch to Dr. Web?

 

I agree. I found leaving it default in Vista works much better than attempting to tweak it.

 

I said I fixed the problem Not made it worse

 

That is correct. The days that showed zero detection will skew the statistics, and you can see the standard deviation if you examine the results for all of the time dimensions. The variance was caused by updating the scanner as you state. That needs to be addressed (and corrected) if the testing is to be empirically sound.

 

Bunkhouse Buck, that is not the only problem. If you look at the current zero day stats, it seems that Avira misses alot of Allaple samples compared to other antivirus programs. But the samples we recieved from Shadowserver do not include any Allaple samples! Our guess is that the changed log format of AntiVir 8 is not parsed correctly, resulting in "missed" samples.

 

Stefan,

I am aware there are other issues. There have been criticisms of the methodology for some time, and it appears this is another instance. Although I think their tests have merit, they lose points for what you describe.

BB

 

Don't be embarassed. You can tell us. We won't make fun.