How is Eset Updates so small compared to others

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Nevis, Jun 19, 2011.

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

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    I installed Eset yesterday and was wondering about its small size.

    its just 50Mb in size.. much less than other suites ( though installer size is not imp)

    Main thing is it updated around 10 -11Mb and it was good to go .

    thats surprising. All other antivirus are almost 80+ Mb in size and they first update 100Mb+ of data.

    how can eset updates be so small ? :doubt:
     
  2. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Strange that wouldn't you ask them by posting in Esets forum?
     
  3. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    I thought here I would get better replies as it would involve more people knowing other Av techniques too ( which differs from eset )
     
  4. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    OK, but Marcos and the other mods are straight up honest type of guys.
     
  5. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    Well, avast! Free is 55MB in size (with all languages included), its typical program updates are around 2-3MB in size and definitions updates are usually few kilobytes in size (by few i mean like below 10KB).
    The initial definitions update depends on the age of the installer though they update it more regularly now so it's again few kilobytes to maybe 1 megabyte after first install. So nothing too "unusual" on the ESET side...
     
  6. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    What's the installed folder size?
     
  7. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    I know that but even with new installers, update size is significantly larger than 10 Mb.
     
  8. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    for me its :

    91 Mb in Program Data
    71 Mb in Program Files.


    But i am not talking about size of folder after update
     
  9. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I'm not going to argue with that as i haven't actually measured the traffic used for the update but i know it went really fast when i was testing avast! yesterday. It might also mean that ESET is updating their installers more regularly on their webpage. Which avast! isn't doing for the free range of products as they are hosted on download.com page.
     
  10. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    The latest ESET Smart Security installer has signatures from February this year (I just installed it two days ago).

    @Original poster:
    In total ESET's signatures are around 35MB (there are suites with over 120MB for signatures). Also the signatures are fully loaded in RAM, always. Therefore, people tend to complain that ESET nowadays uses more RAM than others. And that is indeed true, but they fully load the signatures in RAM and don't try to hide it by using fancy tricks.
     
  11. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    but even 35 mb is much less than 120MB..:)
     
  12. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    I need to clarify to OP that the eset database is not 50 MB in size, indeed the database is 29 MB in size
    i can confirm this happens in AVs trusting more in heuristics, not signatures every hour incrementing the database
     
  13. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    Indeed it is the fact that you should try to detect as much as malware possible through generic signatures instead of specific malware signatures.
    Another example is Avira, they once in the while clean up their signatures by deleting old signatures and replacing it with generic signatures.
     
  14. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    I was surprised when reviewing the other versions

    installer size:
    v2 (25 MB)
    v3 (35 MB)
    v4 (45 MB)
    V5 (50 MB) (even 47 MB with the new Translator module in EAV)

    now taking into account the RAM used:
    v2 (32 MB)
    v3 (43 MB)
    v4 (54 MB)
    v5 (70 MB)
     
  15. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Wow, even smaller than Panda Cloud and my portion of Avast. So it's only 10 mb bigger overall after update?
     
  16. PC__Gamer

    PC__Gamer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Posts:
    526
    Its stil rather alot, Prevx (webroot) is less than 1mb :)
     
  17. Noob

    Noob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    6,468
    The only benefit that i can see from having a small DB is probably better RAM usage and engine speedo_O

    So IMO, i'll say it doesn't matters. Unless it's a 1GB file theres really no problem with this :D
     
  18. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    why are you comparing it with prevx , it is in category altogether
     
  19. Matthijs5nl

    Matthijs5nl Guest

    I have seen the rougly the same figures as you did, however my V5 beta RAM usage went down to 60MB after some time.
     
  20. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    AFAIK some other AVs also have very small updates. In AVG, a fresh install will have only 8-9MB to download on a first time update. Definition updates are typically 20-30KB only.

    If I remember correctly, only PC Tools/Symantec, Kaspersky and BitDefender really have very large databases in terms of file size. Others seem to have it well-managed.
     
  21. toxinon12345

    toxinon12345 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Posts:
    1,200
    Location:
    Managua, Nicaragua
    This is true for AVs using incremental updates(the most of them)

    what about the full database size of AVG?
    I remember downloading a large ZIP file around 80 MB in size, containing this database recently
     
  22. Nevis

    Nevis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Posts:
    786
    Location:
    255.255.255.255
    no, even f-secure,panda,quick heal, comodo have big updates too...

    so " Others" according to you constitute the majority
     
  23. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    F-Secure uses BD engine, so that can be explained. Panda....well, dunno about their global protection but the cloud AV doesn't have a huge cache, does it?

    Never used QuickHeal and Comodo, so I cannot comment on it. Ditto with Dr.Web because I've been out of touch with their product for way too long.
     
  24. m0unds

    m0unds Guest

    panda AV/IS/GP has a full set of offline definitions. don't have access to my machine to check the size, but the only update that's big is the initial update, and with the 2012 product, it was a total of 4 updates, one of which was a hotfix. total size was less than 30MB downloaded.

    this thread is sort of OT isn't it?
     
  25. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Coming back to the topic, if Eset is still using assembly language to code its engine components, it should mean less disk space taken as machine-specific translator/interpreter code would not be required, meaning less lines of code and less "wraps" for execution. This naturally means a lower file size.

    It's just a theory though, take it as you will.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.