RAM usage - no longer impressive

Hello all,
A few years back we selected Nod32 for it's light impact on systems. Its been good, but one aspect seems to have crept up: ram usage. Nowadays, ekrn.exe uses 55MB on my XP system, which seems like a lot just to sit and scan file activity.
According to this review it is now well behind other anti-virus products:
~Link removed.~
it comes in #8 for ram usage.
for example the latest Norton uses only 12MB
~Link removed.~
Yes I know, Norton was abysmal and we escaped from it to Nod32. But in 2009 they fixed performance dramatically. So it actually seems like the best option now.

So Nod32 had a nice window where Symantec were complacent and let a lot of market share slip away, but that window is really closing now ... whats the response?

 

Other software using less RAM in no way makes it better. For all you know, they could simply be using less variables all over the code, which increases CPU usage and decreases memory usage.

 

The current signature database has 26 MB in total compared to the first v. 2.5 installer with a 2,5 MB engine. Not only the number of signatures has grown in time, also additional modules (such as self-defense, anti-stealth, antispam, etc.) and plugins for various email clients have been added and the functionality of the program has been enhanced and extended to provide better protection.

 

Hehe on my system I use ESS and ekrn.exe uses 24MB and egui.exe 2,5MB right now after the computer has been on for 3 hours and a lot of web surfing

 

AV programs try to hide their real usage in various ways, also RAM usage says not so much, CPU usage and Disk I/O is more important to make sure it has a light system impact.

 

the post above you from eset moderator states the virus database is 26MB, tell us your secret?

 

HAHA sorry I don't have any secrets to tell you

 

A couple of years ago...what I would consider to be the average RAM for most peoples computers was 256 or 512 megs. Powerusers perhaps 1024 megs (a gig). So...back then an AV program was potentially consuming say...1/6th or 1/10th of available RAM.

now-a-days...most users are up past a gig or two..many at 3 and 4 gigs...and more.

Lets draw a mental chart of RAM in our heads...shall we?
Amount of RAM in computer systems these days...a very steep curve that goes up and up and up.
Increase in RAM consumption of antivirus software...very small, shallow graph.

Available system RAM growth has far exceeded the measly ~40 meg increase in NOD.

On my laptop here that I'm typing from..4 gigs of RAM, I'm not going to lose sleep over my AV product using 50 or 70 megs of RAM.

 

Agreed, but: ESET is getting heavier, concurrents are getting lighter? And ESET is not getting a better detection/prevention than concurrents.

But I agree with you: when I used MSE it did use 70 mb ram. I have 4 GB, and it felt darn light. This will also be because CPU usage, I/O, OS integration and so.

 

to reduce the use of memory, is there any setting I can use? eg change the user interface, etc.

 

That would have minor effect if any at all. No offence, but if you are so short of memory that you need tweaks to save 10-20mb of memory you really should buy some more RAM. In case you have that little amount of RAM installed in your computer i'm sure some more RAM would increase the performance of your computer as well.

If you have enough ram installed does it really matter if nod32 use 30, 40 or 50mb of ram? Yeah i guess it's look more pretty if the ram usage is lower, but on a moderm computer 50mb of ram isn't a lot and not sure why some are that hung up in those number as long as the ram usage is within a reasonable limit.

gan

 

You read my mind.

 

Hello all..

i found that on my windows 7 x64

ekrnl uses up 55 MB of my RAM..

one more thing..
i have an .iso image which size reach 4GB
it contains video from my dvd cam..
and eset cant scan the .iso
processor power goes up to 95 to 98 percent and takes 100 MB memory all the time,
but i have to wait for 2 hours with no increment of its scan progress..


anyone can tell me why eset cant scan it?
is it occured with my big .iso file or with my windows 64 bit?

thanks..

 

Advanced Heuristics

 

Why would someone scan such thing for viruses goes beyond me really... yeah it's a nice CPU benchmark and won't be any different for whatever other AV out there. Do you also scan movie DVDs to check whether they are not infected?

 

Hmmm... I got wonderings

I just checked the taskmanager since my HD wash chewing away for some reason.

AND while I was in the taskmanager I noticed that ekrn.exe ONLY used
1.9 MB of RAM?

I mean how can the ekrn.exe differ so much?

For example when I used ESS version 3.0 it was steady at around 30-40 MB of RAM.

But how come that it drop so so low to just 1.9 Mb of usage?

Right now when I write this ekrn.exe uses 17MB of RAM, wich is more normal.

I am wondering since I have never ever seen ekrn.exe use that small amount of RAM before as 1.9MB

 

no no..

its just a sample..
my iso image contains lots of my programs and backups from my office
i make it compressed to an iso image file, b'cause i think that it will be easy enough for me to burn into a DVD somedays
my iso image file was nearly to 4 GB

i turned off advanced heuristics, but the scan was still the same condition as before..


any help?


ouw, i forgot..

my computer specification was :
Phenom II x2 3,1 Ghz (Dual Processor Socket AM3)
RAM 2x2 GB DDR3 10.600 Dual Channel
Harddisk Seagate 160 GB SATA

 

It is really impossible ekrn.exe uses 1.9 MB. You are probably mistaking ekrn.exe with egui.exe. The user interface/tray icon process uses around 2-3MB of ram.

 

Sorry Sir, but it was NOT a mistake. Since I also looked at the egui.exe wich was using 3.5MB at that very moment.

So, when ekrn.exe used 1.9Mb of RAM, egui.exe used the normal 3.5MB of RAM.

And again. It was NOT a mistake and Yes I know egui.exe is the interface process of Eset.

And I also belived it was impossible, but it seems not.

Hmmm... to bad I didn't take a screenshot,
BUT if it happens again I promise I will

 

look like a mistake or error for me too

with my old pentium 3 733, 512 Mb ram, XP home, nod32 ekrn.exe use presently 48.7 Mb (48744 kb) of ram

YeOldeStonecat

yes many new pc had many ram of memory but i have only 512 Mb. I hope nod wont be too heavy because of my old pc

 

Man i'm not blind only because I wear glasses

Mistake NO!!! Error in the ekrn.exe service possibly YES

 

He's probably looking at the private working set instead of the whole process's working set.