4.2.71.2 Memory Usage

Hi,
I've just installed 4.2.71.2 on XP Pro SP3, 2.8 GB RAM (Default Installation settings)

ekrn.exe memory usage is 64.228 K, is this acceptable and 'normal', or high for 4.2?

Thanks in advance,

Bud.

@Long time user of older versions.

 

i think thats normal. mine show 66K

 

Yes it's acceptable. The normal RAM usage is between 20-70MB of RAM.

 

Thanks for the responses folks, I'm not all that concerned, but relatively speaking, there's a huge difference between 20 and 70MB of RAM and I'm wondering with a default installation why?

I'm using an 'ex corporate' Pentium 4 machine, uninstalled Symantec Endpoint 11, ran the Clean Up tool and removed any obvious 'safe' Symantec leftover folders and reg entries before installing Nod 32.

What are the majority of users seeing, near 20 or near 70 MB?

@One thing's for sure, OS start up time's been considerably reduced.

 

Note that a "high" RAM usage isn't a bad thing in itself, but a good thing. By loading things into memory instead of loading them from disk all the time, Nod32 becomes lighter on the system and reduces i/o reads and writes. You paid for your memory, so why would you not want to use it?

 

RAM usage doesn't really say anything about the impact EAV has on your pc. CPU and disk usage by EAV are more important, since nowadays RAM ain't the bottleneck anymore of a pc (CPU in most cases also not anymore, in most cases the disk is the bottleneck except if you have a solid state drive). ESET security products are really light on CPU and disk so in the end I don't notice ESET is running on my system.
Also it is useless to compare RAM usage of different security product vendors since they all write their software differently. Also some vendors try to lower RAM usage by hiding it by using virtual memory or the pagefile instead of physical memory (RAM).
A major difference between ESET and other security product vendors is that if you are using ESET, the virus signature database is always fully loaded into RAM, that counts for about 30MB already.

Also the amount of RAM EAV is using on your pc is really normal.

On my system, Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1 Dutch, ESET Smart Security 5 Beta (ESS 4 was quite similar) uses:
egui.exe around 5.900 kB
ekrn.exe *32 around 68.000 kB

 

Haha, don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, just interested.

Many thanks for all the info folks, I'm one happy camper, don't even notice Nod running and I'll swear my box is faster after getting rid of that Corporate ****.

Bud.

 

How about if HDD LED light blinking non-stop?Is it normal for ESET?I realize that BETA version 5 uses much more physical memory than the version 4.May I know why?

 

Then we can just sacrifice our RAM usage to use the heavy bitdefender?I tried Bitdefender last year and it was so heavy with high RAM and CPU usage.So may I know is this a good thing?Thanks.

 

Do you really think that ESET is as heavy as BitDefender, only because of the 70MB RAM usage? That's just wrong thinking.
You never give up yongsua

Also I have asked you so many times if you feel that ESET is heavy, or if you feel a drag during different tasks.
And everytime you answer NO, so what's the problem really?

Yes it's a good thing when it comes to how ESET have done this, YES.

 

Hi,Now I am not talking about ESET,I am talking about Bitdefender.Don't misunderstand.

 

Note the "in itself" in the quote. There is a difference when frequently accessed thing are loaded into memory for quick retrieval, compared to bad coding.

But a program that uses a lot of available RAM and is well coded, like Nod32, becomes faster and smoother, not heavier and slower.

 

ESET is very light with some cost in RAM usage, which you generally have lots of these days

 

I guess I just did

But I'm just confused since you don't seem to understand why ESET uses 20-80MB of RAM.
We have given you the answer several times.

 

I already understood why ESET uses 20-80MB so we can stop discussing about this now.

 

ekrn.exe hovers at around 64MB on my laptop. As King Grub mentioned, AV products that utilize a lot of RAM will normally perform better than those that do not. The high RAM usage comes from the core of the AV product loading their virus definitions in memory, making them much faster to access the data that they constantly use. In my experience, this is common practice of most AV products that offer real time protection.

Good deal. Running the clean-up tool was a wise idea to ensure everything is gone, especially the stuff SEP may have had in its quarantine. SEP is another AV product that loads its definitions into RAM but its memory footprint is larger than ESET's NOD32. On boxes running SEP, I've seen it start using around 60MB RAM, but as the system runs, its memory consumption increases and eventually steadies out at around 130MB RAM usage. It almost leads one to believe there's a memory leak in their product... until you see it stop consuming RAM. SEP is a pretty good product in terms of its functionality and effectiveness, but I still think ESET does a better job in terms of speed and resource utilization. Also, ESET's track record on Virus Bulletin speaks for itself. Removing SEP from your box probably saved you about 60-70MB RAM which I'm fairly sure is precious on your bomb-diddly P4.

 

To my knowledge, I can't think of any P4 boxes that has a chipset with an integrated northbridge. I'm fairly sure the P4 that the OP owns doesn't have such a chipset, but I could be wrong.

I'm having troubles understanding the logic behind your contribution to this topic. Hard disk I/O has always been a bottleneck, even in today's newer PC's with Intel's Sandy Bridge chipset.

One thing I would have a problem with is if the AV product didn't load itself into RAM. I'd be concerned with its performance and reliability. I'd be afraid that race conditions could be exploited. This is all off-topic, though, and should be discussed elsewhere.

 

Sill the same here syntax, 64/65MB since I installed, this box has 2.8GB ram and right now 2.1GB's available so it's not a problem.

"bomb-diddly", I like that, actually it works rather well, was a gift from our IT guy with a fresh OS install....clean as a whistle. (other than Endpoint 'for life', which was a friendly gesture)