OSNN Anti-Virus Poll

What anti-virus scanner do you use?


  • Total voters
    136
Well, that may be right on your machine Elroy, but I'm sure of the results I got. I've tested all of these AV apps backwards and forwards. AVG v6 ran 4 processes (2 of which were services it had installed), and combined used just as much RAM as Norton. This was with just email scanning and auto-protect running. I'm really surprised you guys are getting such great results with it. I mean, it's a nice program, but the resource usage I found to be much higher. I know different hardware can account for different results, but memory usage of 2MB is really low, for any application, let alone an AV application.
 
vector, how are you measuring your memory useage?
I only use 2 - 4 mbs on everybox I put this on.
 
open task manager, close down avg while watching pf useage.

the change is what the working set is.

then open services, shut down the service while watching the delta again

you are the first person I know that avg free version uses more then a few mbs
 
ah, I just re reread your post...what other processes need to be turned off?

turning down the app, then the single service I know about gives me just under 4mbs
 
Macafee, I get it for free from work. And until it lets a virus through I'll stick with it.
 
perris said:
open task manager, close down avg while watching pf useage.

the change is what the working set is.

then open services, shut down the service while watching the delta again

The change in pagefile usage? That doesn't really measure RAM usage. There is a column in task manager called "Mem Usage". That tells you the allocated memory of all the processes (or the working set of physical memory). Even if a process isn't using all of the allocated memory, it's still being allocated to it, which means it's not available to other programs. That's how I judge memory usage.

I don't remember what the names of the 4 processes are, though. My memory's not what it used to be (no pun intended).
:D
 
ah..that is not how memory allocation works in the nt kernal vector

when memory in xp is not being used, it is available as if it were sitting doing nothing...this is the very foundation of this virtual memory operating system...xp is priming memory for most likely use when their is a feast of it...much better then sitting around and waiting for some app to claim memory

memory requested is not memory allocated, it's marked for swifter writes if needed, but it is not earmarked as protected in any sense...in times of plenty, every process is allowed to be a hog, though the app does not need or use any of it, because this "priming" is at no price if the priming policy was incorrect.

the following is a cut and paste from the knowledge center;

If you are uncertain about the memory requirements of a process that you are running, you can note its working set in System Monitor, shut it down, and observe the corresponding effect on paging activity on your computer. The amount of memory freed by terminating programs is the amount of additional physical RAM needed on the system.

 
add up all of your processes using your method, and you'll see more memory requested then memory in use.
 
Vector said:
The change in pagefile usage? That doesn't really measure RAM usage. There is a column in task manager called "Mem Usage". That tells you the allocated memory of all the processes (or the working set of physical memory). Even if a process isn't using all of the allocated memory, it's still being allocated to it, which means it's not available to other programs. That's how I judge memory usage.

I don't remember what the names of the 4 processes are, though. My memory's not what it used to be (no pun intended).
:D


and even then it only uses 6mb together for the two, and only two processes are associated with AVG, not 4 or 6.
 
Elroy:

Again, I'll say that that may be the case for you. But that's my whole reason for bringing this up. I'm surprised that you're getting those results.

perris:

I know how memory management works in NT. But I was always under the impression that physical memory (not virtual memory) allocated can't be taken back until it's released by the process that it's been allocated to. That's how it works in Unix. I may be mistaken on that fact, though. I don't develop for Windows. It sounds like you've done your homework on this, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks for the info.
 
ha...my favorite discussion

first, all memory in nt is virtual!!!!

true

memory management is a differant beast in nt then vm...in nt,their are far more and policies, far more sophisticated memory claim and rmemory reclaim policies then linux

in general, in linux, the whole working set is pretty much tied up till it's released, not at all true in xp, and therfore, xp can request memory that it never intends on using, and is never tied up, it's just addressed.

my paper on the subject isn't completed yet, but upload the zip, have a read, it's complete with all the referances you'll need to verify the info contained.

pm to me your feedback as well, I'm having trouble figuring out if I'm clear with my pros, so let me know what needs to be re written...

be happy to add you as a credit for any input you send along
 

Attachments

  • almost finnished.zip
    7.7 KB · Views: 69
not included in the paper, but for your purposes vector, a comparison between linux swap and nt page.;

Paging is done on a fine granularity -- a page at a time ( there is some effprt to group some pagefaults to cut down the I/O overhead, but in general it's very fine)...it's done in nt in response to the page faults that are incurred...it's reactive, not proactive as far as the affected process is concerned

also, this is done to the pages of whatever process incurred the fault,..not others.

Swapping, however, is done to entire working sets at a time, a "working set" in these systems would be all the physical pages currently protected by a process.

They take the entire working set, copy it to disk, and rthenelease all its pages for use by other processes. hopefully, It's not done to an active process, and it's done in response to some OTHER process's iwhich incur a page fault because the system is low on memory.

for the most, it's gladly done to a long-idle process as a rule.

NT doesn't do anything exactly like traditional swapping in these terms of writing and reading entire working sets;

the paging mechanism performs the same philosophy,but it's much more gradual, and obviously, with a lot less of a hit specific programs that might get referanced.

then, there is no specific "inswap" later; the process will simply page what it needs back in, i(if or when).

Also, as in regular paging, this "gradual outswap via paging" doesn't bother to write out nonmodified pages, like those containing code -- if needed again they can just be brought in from the original exe or dll's...this is missed by most.

As in linux swapping, all done to longest-idle processes when the system is short on free RAM.

one mistake I think xp plociy makes when a person has an abundance or ram, is it will aggressively release working sets of applications you minimize...this particular policy I think needs to be changed in nt memory management
 
all off topic...let's get back to av's

vector, pm to me for more of my favorite topic
 
Just to prove to myself that I'm not losing my mind, I installed AVG on a test machine. It was version 7, though, not version 6 (my mistake), and it's the Pro version.

4 processes running: avgupsvc, avgamsvr, avgemc, avgcc
combined mem usage: 18MB

This is measuring memory usage from the Mem Usage column of Task Manager, not dealer's method. With only email scanning and resident shield active (no heuristic scanning algorithms). Are all of you guys running version 6? Maybe that's the difference between our results.
 
I'm running 6, all I have is the one running process

could you let me know the memory footprint of 7 using my method?

(it's not my method, it's microsofts method :D)

thanx
 
Sure. I cut the processes down to 3. One of them was the auto-updater service, which I don't use. So I'll give the results for the remaining 3:

avgcc (Control Center) - 3.8MB
avgamsvr (Alert Manager) - 1.6MB
avgemc (Email Scanner) - 5.5MB
 
Not sure. It's Norton, and I've been bitten with the recent update woes (I'm sure you've heard of the problem). So I've had to uninstall Norton. I'll let you know when I get my system back up to speed.
 
NAV 2003 for me NAV has always worked so never really tried any others.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,496
Members
5,625
Latest member
vinit
Back