ekrn.exe Memory Usage

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus v4 Beta Forum' started by tisazalay, Dec 1, 2008.

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

    tisazalay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Posts:
    32
    I'm trying the beta (4.0.68.0), on XP Pro SP3, and the Task Manager always reports a memory usage for the ekrn.exe module over 40Mb, my system is running fine but whenever I run a memoryy defrag/release program ekrn.exe remains using the same amount, different from what happened on V3, where memory could fall to 1MB. Will that be reduced on the final?
    My system is running a bit faster with V4 Beta (and OP 2009), but the mem thing is weird.

    tisazalay
     
  2. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    I think you are confusing egui.exe (around 5mb) and ekrn.exe (around 40mb). I've always seen ekrn.exe at around 40mb. (bounces between 30 and 50 depending on scanning etc)
     
  3. tisazalay

    tisazalay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Posts:
    32
    No, please reread my post (ekrn is what I'm referring to), as you stated, ekrn.exe is around 40 MB, BUT on V3, memory was released with a mem defrag (for example, Fast Defrag 2 Pro), and with V4, memory isn't released, it keeps running near 40 MB (ekrn.exe).

    Memory for egui.exe is released just fine (on both versions, for example from 6MB to 1MB).

    Although it seems to use a lot of RAM, it's somehow more efficient (faster) than V3 on my system (that's cool :p ).

    tisazalay
     
  4. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    Only the engine with signatures takes about 13 MB in RAM so it's impossible to reduce it to 1 MB.
     
  5. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    RAM defragmenters are useless gimmicks and tend to cause more system instabilities, fps loss, crashes and BSOD's than any gain you could get. Also, I am using v3 and it works fine without a RAM defragmenter.
     
  6. tisazalay

    tisazalay Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Posts:
    32
    Didn't seem like that on V3 :rolleyes:
    But, whatever, I love the way it's running on my system (now that I got rid of the dllhost thing), and rolling back to V3 to provide the screenshot (mem as low as 1,630 K for a few seconds) would mean messing the system too much (I have OP 2009 up and running fine).

    Just leave the mem thing alone as long as speed is faster (like now).

    Cheers.

    tisazalay:thumb:
     
  7. gamersmile

    gamersmile Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Posts:
    38
    tisazalay, I just feel bizard about your immediate concern about memory usage.

    After all, RAM are intended to be used, not to be cherished. Given the cheap price of RAMs nowadays, even a fresh starter of PC can have up to 2Gb of RAM.

    I suppose you're not using 256Mb of RAM on your XP Pro SP3? Then there would be just no point in caring too much about the RAM consumption of EAV. As long as the systems are stable and going, leave the RAM things aside.

    Cheers!
     
  8. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,049
    Location:
    USA
    Right, absolutely no reason to want my security software to use 1 MB of memory. I have 2 GB in my laptop and 8 GB in my desktop. The 8 GB was only $119. I remember when a 4 MB SIMM was $99 (1996). Yet the mentality on usage is still the same as it was in those days. I say use the RAM, and make it run as fast as possible rather than trying to conserve the memory. I didn't buy it for it to sit idle. ;)
     
  9. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,852
    That's actually my mentality, I paid for it so use it and improve the damn program! :p Games these days take nearly 1GB and more of RAM yet no one complains at all, Left4Dead on Vista recommends a minimum of 2GB! It is just an old and aging mentality that using less RAM = efficient, which in some cases is true, but not when it sacrifices program improvements.

    If you can do what it does now with less RAM usage that an improvement, because there no sacrifice in features. But we all know v2 > v3 has improvements in nearly all aspects, same for v3 > v4.

    I just get annoyed with RAM defragmenters in general and went off on a rant, I should have said something about RAM in general.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.