Low Resource Use

And you can use Window scheduler to update F prot- so you can disable f-shed.exe and fpavupdm.exe

And this will make F prot truly the lowerest resource AV !

 

Well im using Dr.Web.

What does the 'On accessr: Smart mode" mean?
Will it still pick up viruses when im surfing, or say someone sends me a file and it is infected with a virus.

Will Dr.Web catch the virus?

 

I find the same. I saw your screen shot at 13Mb and that is similar to what my KAV 5 runs at with occassional peaks up to 25. I've even installed it on my daughters P3 500,128Mb RAM. Her PC did have NAV2004 until licence expired and it now starts up much quicker (with reg hack) and operates quicker than it did before.

 

This is the default setting of SpiderGuard and in this configuration it scans only newly created and modified files. But files that you already have on your disk are not checked by SG. Therefore, make sure that you carry out a full on-demand scan before using this mode.

Yes, you are protected. Again, just make sure that you carry out regular on-demand scans and right-click on any files that you download to supplement Smart-mode.

 

Thanks.

Right now, Spider.exe (The on access scanner) uses 614.4k of Memory on Windows98 p2 400mhz.

If I used F-Prot, do you think I can get lower memory usage or the same?

 

Memory footprint isn't the only indicator of system performance..that only tells you what it's using in memory. You also have the code itself, and how it handles file and real time sniffing. Now if you have some dinosaur machine running Win95a with 16 megs of RAM, OK, this is a concern, as you want some free RAM for your OS 'n other proggies. But with most systems today being relatively adequate with most users running 2K/XP with at least 256, hopefully more like 384, 512 megs..and more...memory footprint isn't the issue, it's how the services impact the CPU and real time file protection that are contributing to greater than 50% of the performance hit you realize with an AV program.

Also there are usually 3-4 separate services with AV programs....have to add up the sum of them.

I'm not dogging KAV, it's an excellent AV program, easily in the top 3, I just think it's performance hit is too strong.

 

Agreed.

On non-NT systems, resource usage may be even more important than RAM usage.

And the RAM footprint does not always correlate with effects on system performance. For example, some AV's, such as Mcafee enterprise have a relatively high memory footprint but have very little effect on system performance. While there have been a number of reports that the recent RTM of F-Prot has slowed down a number of systems.

Have you tried the latest versions with the configuration tweaks.

I am running KAV Personal 5 on a 400MHz, 192MB RAM computer with no slowdown whatsoever.

 

I think people need to stop abusing the phrase "resource usage", and get more specific. Saying "this application uses a lot of resources" isn't very helpful.

There are user-mode memory areas, graphics-only memory areas, main memory, FSO handles, registry handles, CPU time, context switches, blah blah blah....

And if you can't be more specific, then how do you know it's using a lot of "resources" to begin with?

 

Some of us who have been in the IT field for a long time are able to make judgement calls based on a "seat of the pants" feel. Ever compared one of those big brand bloated protection suites, against a lean AV program? Easy (for most people) to see a HUUUUGE difference in bootup time, program opening time, ability to multitask, etc etc.

Even clients who have had other AV programs like those OEMs that come on many computers these days, I uninstall those and put on something like NOD or AVG or Symantec Corp (when doing networks)...and they even claim the system is much faster.

Bottom line to the end user, all they care about is "System runs like a pig", or "system runs pretty snappy".

Or many of us who love to play online games, even with my 3.4GHz system with 1.5 gigs of RAM, 256 meg ATI graphics card, 10k rpm Raptor hard drive, Netopia router on ATM,...some antivirus programs will bring your game to a slide show like performance, others..one can leave enabled while you're playing because they don't bog down your system

 

Mmm..not in probably 6 months or so. No not by those tweaks when I did, went with fairly general settings. Happy NOD user lately.

 

personally i ditch f prot because its resources is too LOW ( and i don't have liscense anymore... ^^")

I wasn't even sure if it was working... ( Ok it is with eicar test file... but aprt fomr that i never see its CPu resources jump.. )

And NOD beta offer better protection with low resources anyway.

 

Anyone can do that. I didn't spring out of nowhere yesterday myself.

What I was getting at was how the discourse of "resource usage" typically unfolds. When someone complains about such things, there is no telling what they really mean. Is it a memory pig? Too much CPU time? Too much CPU time all the time, or just when running files... That sort of thing.

 

Well, I'd also like to say that 'resource usage' does mean many things, as nameless pointed out. It can be memory use, CPU use or hard disk usage....so on.

 

Yes, I would agree with this. I sometimes fail to be specific myself.

 

At least for me, low resource use is the somewhat nebulous "system responsiveness" trait - which is some combination of hopping between applications loading, webpage downloading, stall times between initiation and execution of a task, and so on. I really don't care about RAM or CPU usage. If things flash to my eyes when I want them, I'm good. If I'm waiting, I'm looking at what is holding things up.

I wish I could put a quantitative handle on it, I can't, so for now it will be this somewhat vague characteristic.

Blue

 

I will have to agree with Blue, to me the resource usage is of minor importance to me as long as the program in question is responsive and efficent and works as advirtised.

 

I'll agree too. Resource usage is an especially important aspect of an AV to me, because I play a lot of games.

But even when I had eScan installed, the high resource usage didnt really bother me because at least I was getting the protection I wanted

I'm currently very satisfied with ArcaVir, so I'm not sure if I'll make the move to BD

 

Are there any tools out there (preferably free) that can assess an application resource usage in a system taking all aspects such as cpu use/peak, I/O, mem footprint etc. into consideration?

Or are there any formulas you can use by taking some details from task manager?


With regard to previous comments about how a system feels I couldn't agree more. I tried KAV4.5 and with real time monitor active my system slowed down very noticeably and it put me off KAV totally (except as back-up on-demand scanner). Then a couple of months or so ago I read a post somewhere saying KAV5 was lighter, so decided to give it a try and was pleasantly surprised.

I'm sure if I switched to a lighter AV I would notice a very small difference but as my system runs really well with KAV5 I'm happy.

 

True....in my case, and in the eyes of clients/end users...it's an overall sluggishness in the system. In their eyes and minds, they don't care if it's specifically related to one area or the other, it's how their system runs. I basically take care of networks for businesses, a private consultant. Any type of business out there, from law firms, yacht brokers, insurance companies, performing arts theaters, health care agencies, architects, resorts, accounting firms, some fabrication plants, precious metals, various non profit orgs, any type of business out there that has computer needs, I install/support, etc.

For some of these users, who run basic applications on the average scale, this issue isn't all too important. But for many of them who run some intensive applications, this REALLY impacts them. Such as the accountant who needs to generate reports for the company, or an engineer or architect who needs to render a project and/or work with some massive projects in his CAD software running on his professional graphics workstation. For all my clients I have my minimum standards anyways, example new computers..no Celerons, WinXPp, 512 megs or more, set Windows appearance to performance mode, keep as malware free as possible, etc etc. I always like my setups to be tight, snappy, and solid running. It reflects on me. But these heavy duty users such as the main accountant or the engineers...boy, if I installed something that dragged their system down to glacially slow speeds, I'd hear about it. He's be screaming "Man what did you do? That picture I used to render would take 15 minutes....now it takes 2 hours!!! Or...opening a drawing used to take 30 seconds, now it takes 4 minutes!" Or the accountant would scream about report generating taking accordingly that much longer.

It's that sort of thing I have to deal with. The technicalities of why one AV program makes the computer perform differently than the other AV program is not important to the end user/client. I'm the one who has to answer my cell phone if my clients aren't happy.

 

Fellow Creatures,
All very good points. The problem is that these units of measure are all we have to make decisions on how to match the software we desire with machine or hardware we will be using. All at a cost that can be affordable. ...StoneCat is correct the "professions" can be impatient. "Oh, hurry up." I have assisted some while our IT is tied up elsewhere. People just want things to work and fast without to much "now what do I do" thinking. Certainly understandable if you have no interest in how things work.

 

Ok, I buy into this line of reasoning that the real test is whether there is a system slowdown. That could be independent of memory usage, unless the system is memory constrained, like trying to run XP or even w2k in 128MB.

So everybody that has done some testing along these lines, what did you find out? I suppose quite a few will chime in about NOD, as that seems to be its calling card. Someone mentioned McAfee enterprise, any other candidates?

 

DrWeb, F-Prot

 

Well from my experience, it's been more along the lines of managing it on networks, I don't really deal with many stand alone machines, home users, etc. It's usually networks of at least half a dozen computers, often with a server on the network, and often that server is a MS Small Business Server. In some places, larger WAN networks with many servers and dozens or 50 or a 100 workstations.

So my view is influenced by 1) Effectiveness, 2) Managability from a centralized point, 3) Performance impact on workstations, and 4) Price. Not necessarily in that order. Oh, and 5) Getting familiar with a package, and a relationship with a wholesaler with it, regarding pricing, your cut of the profits, licensing, and VAR support. For me, up til 2 years ago, I was always Symantec CE/SBE. Not long ago, I wanted to do some networked installs of something else, just to try them. It was a close call between becoming an AVG reseller, and NOD32. I chose NOD32, and am happy so far.

I've pretty much some across a greater percentage of the products out there, both in stand alone, and networked setups. Enough times to get a decent "feel" for the product. I'm sure all of us in the IT field have dealt with the big boys retail home products, those 120 day OEM installs, or the old "Staples purchase" the home user makes. And those of us who do more VAR/business support have dealt with the networked versions of products, like McAfees Orchestrator, Symantecs CE/SBE, CAI's clumsy (IMO) InnocuLAN/IT, Sophos (getting popular with schools/college campuses), etc.

 

ASG has some good software for system perf monitoring...

www.asg.com click on the infrastructure management & ASG-sysload

 

Abacre AV very ,very low ressources and memory!