mks_vir resource hit ...

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by msanto, Aug 20, 2004.

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

    msanto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    214
    OK, I was all set to narrow it down between KAV and NOD32 ... now I hear about mks_vir.

    What's the resource hit with this baby? I run BOClean also so I'm not worried about trojans or anything.

    I have read that 2.12 is an impressive update for NOD32 so I'm interested in that as well ... and I have heard it's very light on the resource hit.

    It's not because I have an older PC BTW, (3.0GHz P4, 1024MB RAM, 800 MHz FSB, etc. etc.) but because I'm a gamer, that I want a light, yet still effective scanner.

    And I'd prefer it be that way out of the box (I don't want to disable any features ... in fact, with NOD32 I would probably turn on "all file" scanning since I hear it defaults to only a subset).
     
  2. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Do a searrch. Info is out there.

    Somewhere between KAV 5 (which is somewhere in the middle of the pack) and NOD32 in terms of system impact.
     
  3. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    On my XP Pro systems, the following Virtual Memory usage is seen;

    1. mks_vir 2004; 4 running processes totalling 27,904 K.

    2. NOD v2 beta; 2 running processes, 9,300K. (not default settings but 'full' settings as suggested by Blackspear).

    So on my systems, mks_vir has a little more of a memory hit and my systems are generally faster and have more snap with NOD as the main AV.

    Incidentally, I am also running KAV 5 on an ancient Pentium II with no slowdown whatsoever. KAV 5 has 2 running processes taking up 15,678K VM.

    I would be surprised, however with your fast system, that resource/memory usage would be a problem, even with games.

    Trial the AV’s you are interested in and see which one suit your software and hardware the best. All three of the above AV’s run well on my systems. Unfortunately, this does not automatically mean that it will be the same with your computer, particularly with the games software you have installed.
     
  4. msanto

    msanto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    214
    My problem is this. McAfee has a problem w/ SP2. If you need to reinstall the SW the d/l page comes up blank with errors. I've seen other people w/ this problem on McAfee's website so I know it's not just me.

    And ... if I try something and don't like it, I can't go back to McAfee. So I'm kinda stuck without being able to try stuff.

    Note: all my personal systems are SP2.

    My work PC is SP1, but they won't allow anything but the std corp AV on it (though I could get around it if I tried) :)

    What about effectiveness? I'm looking for a balance.

    Yeah, I know it looks like my system wouldn't bog down, but you'd be surprised. You should see home much an Athlon XP 2800+ w/ 1GB RAM (work) is bogged down by our Trend Micro Corp AV. Seeing that, I'm worried about anything :D
     
  5. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To everyone from Firefighter!

    Those figures I've seen are not the whole truth. I have always 5 - 7 different av:s installed on my PC. With MKS_VIR 2004 I had never such delays when I tried to open my Explorer 6 or Opera 7.52 browsers but when I used KAV 5.0.149 or Panda Platinum 7.07.01, those delays irritate me too much.

    MKS_VIR 2004 is THAT NOD I wanted to see more in different forums, excellent heuristics in various areas and one of the best common trojans detection with still very decent virus detection, what more you can wait for?

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  6. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    MKS fascinates me. It will frequently use 100% CPU. (I have Dell 8300 Dimension 3.0GHz with Hyperthreading 1024RAM). Now here is MKS using up to 100% of the CPU because I had Crucial ADS running and it was in System Restore where Crucial gettings bogged down and MKS was scanning all the files as Crucial was. The fascinating thing was that I could still listen to Winamp radio and use Firefox and Mozilla both of which were open along with Filemonitor with VERY small delay. It was amazing.

    MKS is using about 40,000K (4 processes). I do see a slow down though in some respects. I just downloaded page file monitor and after unzipping tried to scan it with MKS. I had to try four times and then it took forever to scan this one file. This trial is VERY IRRITATING because anything you try to do you get about 5 popups reminding you that you have a trial version. You have to keep clicking those away before you can do anything.

    So far, I like MKS a lot. It seems at times to slow my box though more than KAV 4.5 did but not as much as KAV 5.0 did. NOD32 without the HTTP scanner is the lightest and fastest but most people want that HTTP scanner and it noticably slowed my box too. I haven't tried MKS but for one day now so I need to try it further but at this point I would say KAV 4.5 is the lightest on resources if the NOD32 HTTP scanner is used and KAV and NOD32 are compared and if not KAV 4.5 and NOD32 are about the same and MKS is unpredictible at this point. Of the three KAV4.5, MKS and NOD32, I far prefer MKS GUI and I far prefer MKS quarantine.
     
  7. Honyak

    Honyak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Posts:
    346
    Location:
    Deep South
    MKS fascinates me.

    I purchased MKS today just a few hours after using the demo, it is fascinating and I noticed that at times everything run normally and then at times it does seem to cause a slight delay when opening programs. I am still playing around with it but I really like it and it seems to be a very reliable product. It definately slows spybot s&d some during scanning but I have Extendia AVK on my other box and it slows spybot scanning down also.

    Caution: I uninstalled the demo before installing the liscenced version but it kept installing as the demo with update capability. After secveral attempts I just used system restore and it installed without a hitch.
     
  8. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I really like it but I think it needs some work before I will be ready to buy it. One thing is really irritating and that is anytime I download an application and then click on "show download location" in the Firefox download manager, it takes about two minutes before the downloaded programs folder opens! I'm not willing to wait that long. I have not seen a noticeable slow down when accessing that folder using NOD32 or KAV 4.5. After I finally get into the folder and right click on the newly downloaded application so I can scan it, it takes about another minute for mks to pop up and then I have to click away several pop ups about the trial version and then it is slow to actually scan the file.

    I'm used to NOD32, and KAV 4.5 for the month I trialled, it popping up instantly with the scan done of the file and used to never having any noticeable delay on accessing my downloaded programs folder. I access that folder frequently so I can't have an av that makes me wait several minutes every time I want to access it. This is the only really noticeable slow down I have seen so far in two days of trial.

    Actualy, I now think the slow down was due to my paging file minimum and maximum set too high. My Page File usage had grown to 1.02GB! It seems File Monitor was the culprit. I have now set the min/max to 256MB. As soon as I killed File Monitor, I didn't have any sluggishness in getting into my downloaded programs folder.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2004
  9. msanto

    msanto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    214
    As far as your paging file goes, a size of 1.02 GB may not be out of bounds. It depends on how much RAM you have.

    You should, of course, set your own size and not let Windows adjust it for you, but most places I've seen recommend either 2x your RAM or half again what Windows recommends as max.

    Also, when's the last time you defragged? I like DisKeeper because it optimizes for speed, not just contiguous files. 'Course you post a lot Mele20, so I figure you're one of the experts and I probably don't need to tell you any of this. :)
     
  10. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA

    Another example of you first casting the blame on an AV and only later finding out it may be a problem at your end.

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=240123#post240123

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=232233#post232233
     
  11. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Yes, but then she had the integrity to admit that fact. Moreover, she did so without manifesting an air of self-righteousness.
     
  12. Stan999

    Stan999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX USA
    However, IMHO, it might be a bit better if she took a little time to check things out better first prior to posting problems with different AVs and then having to come back and change the cause of the problems.

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=232233#post232233
     
  13. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Agree. Else: Act quickly, repent at leisure. :)
     
  14. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,875
    Location:
    New England
    Lest we forget that the topic of this thread is the "mks_vir resource hit" question... Let's try to get back to that, rather than talking about who posted what and why. Thanks.
     
  15. msanto

    msanto Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Posts:
    214
    I'd sure like that!
     
  16. Eliot

    Eliot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Posts:
    854
    Location:
    Arkansas, USA
    I own and run mks_vir 2004 currently. I will say that only NOD32 can claim a lighter hit on the resources (actual loading/visual speed) on my pc's. I have ran Trend, EZ, KAV 4.5 and 5.0, NOD32, AVK Pro and AVK 2004 so far. All are noticably worse on the system visually except NOD. mks_vir 2004 does not hit enough to warrant choosing NOD over it if that is the only determining factor. Personally I run both NOD and MKS, just use one as the on demand scanner.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.