P

Plexx

Any Eset 5 user could tell me how much exactly does ekrn.exe *32 use in memory? as on my Host and Guest OS uses about 75,900 (on idle)

I know it ain't particularly light since version 4.
 
D

Deleted member 178

That is very high..no way I keep an apps that eat so much ram specially when others are lighter and surely more effective (Norton, CIS, avast. ..)
 

win7holic

New Member
Very High, but did not make the system slowdown at all. No problems for the user to have a lot of ram.
I know other AVs (in same paid version) have more low ram usage. Such as; NAV with 15-17MB ram usage (3 processes)
but, if NOT make system slowdown, why not use it? atleast, ESET NOD32 not bad in detection also (I already test it few days ago)
 

jamescv7

Level 61
Verified
Trusted
Seems a bit high on their even it uses 2 processes. Usually an average product consumes like 35-40MB.
 

Linuxfever

New Member
Last time I've tested ESS , ekrn.exe *32 was going as high as 70MB but this shouldn't be a real problem if you have enough ram. ( 2 GB or more)
Also : http://malwaretips.com/Thread-ESET-5-is-officially-released?pid=23885#pid23885
 
D

Deleted member 178

Linuxfever said:
Last time I've tested ESS , ekrn.exe *32 was going as high as 70MB but this shouldn't be a real problem if you have enough ram. ( 2 GB or more)
The problem is everybody cant afford to have a monster computer with 8gb ram and a quad core cpu. 70mb of ram is huge... you can see than CIS or NIS have a lot of features and dont go above 20mb
 
P

Plexx

Well, the times of version 2 and 3 with low usage are gone.

I would go back to CIS if only the firewall issue wouldn't affect my Xbox...

Since I had still a License for Eset might as well use it.

Although high ram usage, on my system there is no slow downs or anything. Might consider after December (when license expires) to invest perhaps on Kaspersky. Still Unsure.
 

Valentin N

New Member
biozfear said:
Well, the times of version 2 and 3 with low usage are gone.

I would go back to CIS if only the firewall issue wouldn't affect my Xbox...

Since I had still a License for Eset might as well use it.

Although high ram usage, on my system there is no slow downs or anything. Might consider after December (when license expires) to invest perhaps on Kaspersky. Still Unsure.
could you make a thread in the comodo sector so that knowledgeable people can help you
 
P

Plexx

It does have a thread on Comodo section as well as their official forum.

the issue is the firewall settings that somehow messes up the router settings and xbox ain't able to connect to the network...


I'll post a more detail description on the comodo section of malwaretips and post as an issue on the official forums so that someone can look into it.
 

Valentin N

New Member
biozfear said:
It does have a thread on Comodo section as well as their official forum.

the issue is the firewall settings that somehow messes up the router settings and xbox ain't able to connect to the network...


I'll post a more detail description on the comodo section of malwaretips and post as an issue on the official forums so that someone can look into it.
PM me when it's up.
 

iPanik

New Member
While 80MB is on the high side, it is important to remember what it does with those 80 megs. ESET loads all its signatures into memory so that scanning a file is done quickly. at least that's the idea.

Some scanners doesn't load it's signatures before they are needed (or hides it all in virtual memory to make the numbers look good). Once a scan is initiated the memory usage goes through the roof. It saves memory but a scan takes longer.
 
P

Plexx

I actually tested and while on full system scan, did not see any slow downs, cpu only went a bit higher than normal and memory did not really go above the 70/80's benchmark, although their website do claim 100mb.

I have fired up VMware (since I am still having trouble with VB), did some malware testing and although some bypassed, most were caught so detection rate ain't that bad. I then compared the same links and malware files with NAV, KAV and Avast. Sure NAV and KAV had better detection rate and Avast didn't come that far from Eset, but I have to say that KAV and NAV while had low footprint, when the full scan started I saw the memory usage increase quite a bit.
 

SagarSehwag

New Member
Biozfear said:
I actually tested and while on full system scan, did not see any slow downs, cpu only went a bit higher than normal and memory did not really go above the 70/80's benchmark, although their website do claim 100mb.

I have fired up VMware (since I am still having trouble with VB), did some malware testing and although some bypassed, most were caught so detection rate ain't that bad. I then compared the same links and malware files with NAV, KAV and Avast. Sure NAV and KAV had better detection rate and Avast didn't come that far from Eset, but I have to say that KAV and NAV while had low footprint, when the full scan started I saw the memory usage increase quite a bit.
But My Eset Smart Security 6RC is at Maximum Settings.



 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Maximum settings aren't always the best, if memory usage was high at defaults then that's another issue. Also please not, ESET 6 (RC) is still not a final release.
 

SagarSehwag

New Member
Earth said:
Maximum settings aren't always the best, if memory usage was high at defaults then that's another issue. Also please not, ESET 6 (RC) is still not a final release.
Now, I restarted my pc i found it near 93mb
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Might want to read this too,
http://malwaretips.com/Thread-Memory-Usage-ESET-AV-5?pid=36775#pid36775

High memory usage doesn't always mean it's bad, but if you're unhappy with the program then by all means switch to another product. :)
 

arsenaloyal

Level 2
Verified
yes people often confuse idle time memory usage to imply that a particular product would be slow,but thats not how it works in real world.

ESET is one of the lightest AV that I have ever used (still use;))!