NOD32 heaviness

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by n8chavez, Jun 19, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Has anyone else noticed that NOD32 v 2.7 is getting heavier and heavier in terms of memory usage? It seem to me that now NOD32 is taking twice the memory it used to, back when it was lean. Why is that? I will provide screenshots later to validate, however right now I do not have the time. Thanks.

    Nate
     
  2. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    Looks the same to me. I'm not worried about memory consumption but rather how heavy it is on the cpu.
     
  3. SoCalReviews

    SoCalReviews Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Posts:
    282
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I can't confirm whether it is getting "heavier" or not but compared to the other popular AVs I used to use the current NOD32 v2.70.39 still seems to be night and day "lighter" than they were.

    Under my system's task manager the memory usage for nod32kui.exe is 2,732K and for nod32krn.exe it is 26,660K.

    Considering most systems today come standard with 1GB to 4GB of RAM then those NOD32's background processes I mentioned use under 30,000K which is only a small fraction (or less than 3%) of the more than 1,000,000K of total memory that comes standard on most newer systems.

    Just for a reference it would be interesting to compare NOD32 with the memory usage of other AV programs such as KAV, BD, Avira, NAV, McAfee, etc..
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2007
  4. The_Duality

    The_Duality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    I get just over 21k for nod32krn.exe. Absolutely fine for me. And it still feels lighter than anything else.
     
  5. De Hollander

    De Hollander Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    718
    Location:
    Windmills and cows
    Same RAM use as the other AV XXX.. . :blink: but Nod uses +40MB less VM :D
     
  6. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    nod32krn - 20,5 MB, nod32kui - 2 MB. Seems to me reasonable if you take into account that new signatures and other engine updates are being released on a daily basis.
     
  7. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Well that's a very good point. Memory requirements may be up but CPU usage seems to be low still. That is a problem that I have with the Dr Web beta, my CPU was active all the time.

    That is somewhat true. The processes that NOD32 uses are in check. However, as is the case with Dr Web also, NOD32 effects other system processes than inflate system resources.

    Can you see the differences here? Everything is the same, other than the AV.

    http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6449/nod32vr1.png
    http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/2309/drwebrn6.png
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2007
  8. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    Hasn't changed for me...still in the low 20's.
     
  9. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    Its memory usage is a bit more than other av's but its performance impact is far less than many others.
     
  10. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I guess that's what really counts, isn't it? If the user cannot tell is a product is using more resources but you cannot tell then foes it really matter?
     
  11. Megachip

    Megachip Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Posts:
    243
    mem usage seems not compareable...

    WinXP SP2 NOD32 2.70.39

    PIII 700 MHz, 256 MB Ram
    nod32krn.exe 14.728 K
    nod32kui.exe 1.492 K

    P4 2,4 GHz,1 GB Ram
    nod32krn.exe 23.472 K
    nod32kui.exe 2.304 K

    Athlon64 1,81 GHz, 1 GB Ram
    ekrn.exe 28.832 K
    egui.exe 2.138 K
     
  12. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Yes, that's why it is not a fair comparison comaparing different machines with different OS's and different amount of installed RAM.

    The effect on system performance is the key factor and in this respect NOD is generally considered "lightweight".
     
  13. Bunkhouse Buck

    Bunkhouse Buck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    1,056
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have tested virtually every anti-virus engine on my computer (Dell Inspiron 8200) and NOD32 is by far the most efficacious in terms of not slowing down my computer work. This applies to normal computer usage as well as internet activities. Here is the memory used as shown by Windows Task Manager:

    nod32krn.exe 22,796k
    nod32kui.exe 2,656k
     
  14. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    Probably fairly dynamic on machines with sub-average RAM (like under 512 for XP)...such as on that 256 meg box..everything has to squeeze in tight. But on several rigs I have from 1 - 2 gigs of RAM...I'm steady between 22 - 24 megs.
     
  15. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    This post is not a bash or comparison post. I am posting it as it might be interesting for others to see what another av uses as far as memory and CPU
    On windows Vista Home Premium
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 20, 2007
  16. The_Duality

    The_Duality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    @bigc73542: isnt there two avp.exe processes? One takes up the amount of memory shown in the SS you posted, the other takes up an amount of memory comparable to that of nod32krn.exe. Could you post the same data for the other avp.exe process for us to compare with NOD?

    Cheers
     
  17. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    well put it this way on my old pentium 3 with 256mb of ram i dont notice any difference in proformance with or without it.
    so nod32 is still very light.
    atm im using kis7.0tr and the memory usage is as follows.
    one is 3mb and one is 8mb.
    lodore
     
  18. Seer

    Seer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Posts:
    1,596
    Location:
    Singidunum
    Hello. :)

    I have noticed that the same application doesn't consume the same amount of RAM in XP and in Vista. I have a resident app that takes over 20megs in XP. When I put it on Vista, it takes little over 2megs.

    That said, NOD is the definite king of resource sparing among AVs.

    Cheers.
     
  19. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    I'm deploying a bunch of HP Business Desktops at a health care client of mine. Some lighter to mid-weight machines..Pentium 4 D 2.8 with 512 megs, XP Pro. They unfortunately come bundled with Symantecs Corp Edition...didn't notice the version.....10.something. I fired up taskman out of curiosity....the scanner process was 50 megs, the another process was 4, and I think there are 5 total? Didn't look for the other 3.
     
  20. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Here you go
     

    Attached Files:

  21. The_Duality

    The_Duality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    Cheers :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.