File Compression (not what you have in mind)

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by Proud_User, Sep 23, 2004.

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

    Proud_User Guest

    For a reason NOD32 team doesn't seem to be aware that exe and dll compression does actually exist ;)

    I compressed all of this stuff stored at the ESET folder and weee!, now it loads MUCH FASTER and takes FAR LESS space in my HD.

    Give it a shot, of course, disable the nod kernel service and reboot before doing a thing, just to make sure the lil file can be modified.

    I used UPX with the best compression settings turned on to max, you might wanna download some frontend to make the process easier :)
     
  2. pollux

    pollux Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Posts:
    84
    Location:
    Grenoble, France
    Hey, Proud_User, I thought you were having big problems getting your NOD32 program to function correctly at all:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=47614

    Wouldn't you want to get any issues with the default install worked out before you start doing things like compressing program folders?

    Just a thought...

    pollux
     
  3. Proud_User

    Proud_User Guest

    Good point but sadly (for me) it doesn't apply here, my crashing doesn't come from compression since I've only done that on my second computer, not the one where the crashing happens.
     
  4. pollux

    pollux Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Posts:
    84
    Location:
    Grenoble, France
    I see.

    BTW, have you thought about joining the forum here? Registration is free and easy. :)

    pollux
     
  5. Proud_User

    Proud_User Guest

    Hey, I registered ages ago as Proud User, in fact I reported a problem with NOD32 not detecting an older version of Optix Pro if I recall good, anyhow, I'll see if I can find my pass again and start a more regular posting.
     
  6. pollux

    pollux Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Posts:
    84
    Location:
    Grenoble, France
    Super, and welcome (back) aboard!

    (No doubt you're aware that if you can't find your password, you can get it sent to you again :))

    pollux
     
  7. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Thanx :D

    Now that we're here, don't you have a personal point of view on the compression suggestion?, so far there's no cons, just NOD32 finding out the files were modified (nothing bad, even though if NOD32 ever gets injected/infected that way then you wouldn't be sure), but if NOD32 team does compress it all before distributing, then that wouldn't be an issue.
     
  8. pollux

    pollux Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Posts:
    84
    Location:
    Grenoble, France
    I haven't formed an opinion yet, mostly since I don't have the sense that NOD32 loads slowly or takes up too much disk space at present. So I'm not sure that what your suggestion would change is a problem in the first place. On another hand, I don't have any arguments against the idea, either.

    Maybe if there is more discussion of the possible advantages and disadvantages, I would come to more of an opinion. Then again, maybe there hasn't been more discussion yet because others are feeling pretty neutral, too?

    pollux
     
  9. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Basically, compressing NOD32 makes it load MUCH faster in older machines, I'm talking about PIII 900 and under, something above that should load faster but nothing to scream about. Space?, well, the installation file would be smaller, that means, faster download time specially for 56k users.

    The point is that compressing NOD32 doesn't do any harm so there's no reason to avoid this suggestion being all for the good. It's not that it would take loads of coding to change the CRC for the main executables and kernel so they aren't detected as infected.

    The smaller the app the better.

    nod32.exe = 204kb
    nod32kui.exe = 400kb
    nod32krn.exe = 145kb

    DLL's: you check it out for yourself ;)
     
  10. pollux

    pollux Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Posts:
    84
    Location:
    Grenoble, France
    I'm running NOD32 on a very old computer with a processor older than the one you've mentioned, and it loads fine. I also have a fast internet connection, though, so I've never been bothered by download times. That's all just my own perspective.

    Essentially, your suggestion strikes me as something that could be done but I still don't see the burning need for it. That's not really an argument against the idea, though, so I don't really need to be convinced.

    I'm definitely someone who will give input to developers by filing bug reports and so on, but I also tend to be of the "if it's not broken, why fix it?" mentality. Again, that's my point of view.

    pollux
     
  11. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Actually I didn't say NOD32 loaded slow in older machines, I'm stating it loads faster if compressed.

    If there's no cons and it downloads/starts faster, why not giving it a shot?, this doesn't take months or something, I compressed mine in a matter of seconds. This kind fo compression was created for a reason, a reason no software developer should overlook.

    And it's not about being broken or not, we ain't fixing stuff by compressing, we are making the app quite smaller for downloading while decreasing the loading times.
     
  12. spm

    spm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Posts:
    437
    Location:
    U.K.
    First, the download packages for NOD32 already contain compressed files. Compressing the NOD32 executables with UPX will make little or no difference to the download size of the NOD32 distributables. It is even possible that it will *increase* the download size.

    Second, so what if you can save a couple of Mbytes of hard disk space, This is insignificant.

    Third, I am alarmed that NOD32 even allows itself to be run when its executable files have been changed - such behaviour is seriously dangerous in an anti-virus program.

    Fourth, exe compressors like UPX always increase the memory footprint of programs. Windows memory management loads parts of an executable into memory on an on-demand basis. When it needs to load 'pages' which are currently not loaded and there is insufficient physical memory to do so, it swaps out pages of memory (from the same or other processes) to the disk-based swap file to make room. What UPX does - like other compressors - is to de-compress the *whole* of the executable file into memory, and let Windows grab pages from there as it needs.

    Now, you may get some performance gain from a UPX-compressed program (due to the reduction in disk reads of the program's executables) for some programs on some systems under certain load conditions, but you may also experience a performance loss on others (due to increased swapping), depending on the program's characteristics, amount of physical memory and load conditions.
     
  13. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    "First, the download packages for NOD32 already contain compressed files"

    I could compress every dll and exe available at the installation folder, go figure.

    "Compressing the NOD32 executables with UPX will make little or no difference to the download size of the NOD32 distributables"

    False, remember that exes ain't the only files being compressed, do a test.

    "It is even possible that it will *increase* the download size"

    Not possible with the current NOD32 files and UPX.

    "Second, so what if you can save a couple of Mbytes of hard disk space, This is insignificant"

    I didn't say it wasn't, anyhow, that's a minor point here.

    "Third, I am alarmed that NOD32 even allows itself to be run when its executable files have been changed - such behaviour is seriously dangerous in an anti-virus program"

    Agreed, but so far I'm taking advantage of it by gaining some speed from it's compression.

    "Now, you may get some performance gain from a UPX-compressed program (due to the reduction in disk reads of the program's executables)"

    Indeed I do.

    "for some programs on some systems under certain load conditions, but you may also experience a performance loss on others (due to increased swapping), depending on the program's characteristics, amount of physical memory and load conditions"

    Only very low end machines with pretty scarse RAM would be affected negatively, others stand a chance.
     
  14. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Whatever you did...

    It made NOD32 faster :D

    I've done my tests and even with all the settings turned on to max, it's bloody faster than previous versions, any comment on what it's due to?.
     
  15. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,449
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Whatever you did...

    Hello Proud User,

    I am not sure what you are asking in this thread unless it pertains to you other thread HERE. Please clarify your question and if need be I will merge this this thread with the original one.
     
  16. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Re: Whatever you did...

    Nope mister ;) , this isn't something related to my other post. I did my tests without compression and found out it's faster (I'm talking about overall performance and scanning) for a reason I'm not familiar with. Just curious about what changed so dramatically in NOD32.
     
  17. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,449
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Whatever you did...

    Hello Proud User,

    This thread still has to do with the speed of NOD32 either in its original form or after you have compressed NOD32's program files. For this reason I am going to merge this thread with the other one. Let's try to keep all postings on these issues in this one thread.
     
  18. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Since it wasn't a post related to that compression thread, I thought it was ok posting it idividually.

    You might want to merge this post into another one that's more in the "NOD32 is fatser" mood, not really the compression one, of course, who am I to tell? ;)
     
  19. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,449
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    It is just that your argument was originally that compressing NOD32's program files showed positive results as to loading time and speed, but when you went back and tried the newest version you found it not to be the case. Having it all here in one thread shows both sides of the issue, not only one.
     
  20. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Not at all. The loading (the time NOD32 takes to start) increased with compression but that has nothing to do with the fact that NOD32 displays a better performance while running and scanning.

    I'm talking about NOD32 as "out of the box" without any kind of modifications or compression.
     
  21. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,719
    Location:
    Texas
    I feel it runs faster too. I made that statement when the first beta came out.

    The on demand scanner is slower. It checks a few more things than the previous version.
     
  22. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    Is the on-demand scanner checking the same files it used to in previus versions?, some things have changed, NOD32 scans more files as default, perhaps you should check it out and see if it's not scanning text files, pics, etc.
     
  23. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,719
    Location:
    Texas
    I don't mind if the on demand scanner is slower. :)
     
  24. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Nor do I, in fact I found that there was very little difference in scanning times...

    Cheers :D
     
  25. Proud User

    Proud User Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Posts:
    32
    I second that, I scan every existing file on my system, I can't sleep if I don't :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.