4.2.71.2 Memory Usage

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by budchekov, May 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. budchekov

    budchekov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    16
    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.
     
  2. cupez80

    cupez80 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    605
    Location:
    Surabaya Indonesia
    i think thats normal. mine show 66K
     
  3. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Yes it's acceptable. The normal RAM usage is between 20-70MB of RAM.
     
  4. budchekov

    budchekov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    16
    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. :)
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2011
  5. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
    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?
     
  6. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    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
     
  7. budchekov

    budchekov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    16
    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. :)
     
  8. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    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?
     
  9. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia

    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.
     
  10. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    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 :doubt:

    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? o_O

    Yes it's a good thing when it comes to how ESET have done this, YES. :thumb:
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2011
  11. yongsua

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    Hi,Now I am not talking about ESET,I am talking about Bitdefender.Don't misunderstand.
     
  12. King Grub

    King Grub Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Posts:
    814
    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.
     
  13. Spruce

    Spruce Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Posts:
    291
    ESET is very light with some cost in RAM usage, which you generally have lots of these days :)
     
  14. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    I guess I just did :oops:

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

    yongsua Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Posts:
    474
    Location:
    Malaysia
    I already understood why ESET uses 20-80MB so we can stop discussing about this now.:)
     
  16. syntax

    syntax Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Posts:
    9
    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. :)
     
  17. syntax

    syntax Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Posts:
    9
    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.
     
  18. budchekov

    budchekov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Posts:
    16
    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) :)
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.