Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: hiyanett on January 13, 2009, 12:57:25 AM
-
I would like to know if there is anything I can do so that Avast doesn't completely shut down everything until it is done updating? I cannot do anything until Avast has done it's thing and that is that. This is very annoying when in the middle of something and I must wait until it is done. Is taking the whole computers usage over a flaw in Avast or does it do that to everyone? Is there any way for Avast to make the updates less of a pain and update in the background while a person can continue what they are doing? Thanks for any advice.
-
avast update process priority is NOT set to use high CPU usage, unless you've manually started the update (it's logical, when you manually start you DO want it running). Which firewall do you use? Any other security program (or antivirus) in this computer?
-
Avast does the updating by itself, not me. I also run Comodo Firewall.
-
Avast does the updating by itself, not me.
So... it's not avast, but something that it's interacting with avast...
Sometimes, deleting the avast entries into Comodo programs settings (programs allowed to connect) and allowing them again works.
-
I will give this a try, thanks! I will have to wait and see but will let you know if this works.
-
Perhaps you can give us a little more information also on your environment ...
Operating system
Processor type
System memory
This may help us interpret your experience with more certainty.
-
hello,
i assume the advice to poster will be to upgrade his/her RAM? Come on guys, let's face it, since quite some time Avast has become increasingly resource hungry at update and boot...(but also detection capabilities became even better then before, it has to be said) I face the same issue, this until the slider tells me update has finished. And at boot startup time to get all 6 or 7 services running takes up to 5min or more.
Would not be a bad to change min requirements on website to 256Mb min instead of 64Mb. I have 128Mb RAM, and...well as poster explained...
brgds,
mack
-
Lets not jump the gun on possible advise to be offered, we simply don't know anything about the users system.
So if it was found that there is adequate RAM and CPU then obviously it indicates other factors in the mix, such as:
a) what version of avast is the OP using earlier versions were more CPU intensive
b) if this was a manual or auto update (they react differently), the auto update in this case is less CPU intensive, this uses a CPU restriction hack which is OS dependant another reason to ask.
c) other security software and or AV are installed, etc.
d) the users connection method, and if it connects automatically, which avast detects and starts the update check and download (likely to be your problem).
So we simply don't know, so we ask questions and we wait for feedback from the OP before we jump to any conclusions.
You could delay the avast update check so it doesn't check 30 seconds after a connection is detected.
-
since quite some time Avast has become increasingly resource hungry at update and boot...
On contrary... avast is becoming better in both aspects, increasing it performance and allow configuration.
And at boot startup time to get all 6 or 7 services running takes up to 5min or more.
Wow... Did you delay avast services to load in the Troubleshooting tab of settings? Maybe this help...
Would not be a bad to change min requirements on website to 256Mb min instead of 64Mb.
Fully agree.
-
***
I am sorry to say this but, in today's computer world, even 256 mbs is a very minimal amount of RAM for a computer to operate. Even on my last computer (W98SE) when I stopped using it daily 4 years ago, 512 mb was becoming to be not enough RAM. Sure, 512 mb, or even 256 mb, is enough to run the OS and avast but you must consider the other programs and services running in the background. Some of these might even be malware/spyware related which could also use up precious RAM.
As Alan & David have suggested, we know far too little about the OP's system at this point to begin to advise what needs to be done to rectify the problem.
***
-
Well, I did what you said about taking out and adding avast in the comodo firewall and it really didn't change anything. I am using windows xp, 80GB hard drive, 448 MB RAM. Avast version is 4.8. I keep everything up to date. I never manually update, it updates itself. Comodo Firewall is the only other thing on the computer. I am connected by DSL. Processor is Intel(R) Celeron(R) M CPU 420 @ 1.60GHz. I hope this is all the questions I was supposed to answer. Thanks for any help in advance.
-
... I am using windows xp, 80GB hard drive, 448 MB RAM. Avast version is 4.8. I keep everything up to date. I never manually update, it updates itself. Comodo Firewall is the only other thing on the computer. I am connected by DSL. Processor is Intel(R) Celeron(R) M CPU 420 @ 1.60GHz. I hope this is all the questions I was supposed to answer. Thanks for any help in advance.
Your system resources are insufficient to run WinXP with "everything up to date". You should double your RAM and speed up your CPU for more than 2.00GHz, otherwise you should downgrade to Win98/Me.
-
If I were with your configuration, I'll keep Windows XP firewall and not work with Comodo.
Believe me, I have 4Gb RAM and I use Vista Firewall instead a third party one (even do not worrying with outbound protection).
I think I need my system to work, not only for security and protection.
-
4GB of RAM in a 32bit OS is a bit of a waste and overkill to my mind, since the OS can only physically address in the region of 3GB and to that you also have to add any memory on a dedicated graphics card.
@ hiyanett
Your system spec is well up to the task (much higher than some who don't appear to have this problem you are), whilst having more RAM, 1 or 2 GB would make the system much more responsive overall.
The XP OS I think had a minimum requirement of 256MB RAM (and that minimum IMHO is greatly underestimated) when you start adding other application to your system then that overall minimum RAM would have to increase or there would be much hard disk thrashing as information is transferred to and from the swapfile/pagefile and this also slows your system during memory intensive activity (boot/scans/updates, etc.).
So I would recommend you get at least 1GB and preferably 2GB, not just because of this but to improve overall system performance.
With XP avast is able to restrict the amount of CPU% activity the auto update uses, that would be slightly negated by the amount of RAM. So I would suggest that you delay the auto update check, giving the boot time to finish before putting any more stress on the system, see below.
I would also suggest that you check what is allowed to start on boot, that should be essential applications, normally, system and security applications, to further reduce the load. Many programs when you install them set themselves to run on boot, media players in particular are bad for this when you only need them to run when you click on a media file, it starts the associated player.
####
You need to edit (using notepad) the [InetWD] section of the C:\Program Files\Alwil Software\Avast4\Data\avast4.ini file and add the following line the Bold lines below:
Broadband connections, add this line: AlwaysConnectedWaitSeconds=120
[InetWD]
AlwaysConnectedWaitSeconds=120
When complete save the changes, avast's self-defence module will ask for confirmation, etc. answer Yes.
The above figure is seconds and the above equates to two minutes, you could try that and adjust upwards if required, 180, 240, etc. It may be better based on your system to start of with a figure of 300 (5 minutes), this will give your system plenty of time to stabilise.
-
4GB of RAM in a 32bit OS is a bit of a waste and overkill to my mind, since the OS can only physically address in the region of 3GB and to that you also have to add any memory on a dedicated graphics card.
In fact it can address 4GB depending of the BIOS and not only 3GB. Mine is handling 4GB.
-
If I were with your configuration, I'll keep Windows XP firewall and not work with Comodo.
Believe me, I have 4Gb RAM and I use Vista Firewall instead a third party one (even do not worrying with outbound protection).
I think I need my system to work, not only for security and protection.
I agree.
On this old 2.4GHZ P4 XP Home system I purchased quite a few years ago I made sure it had 512MB RAM and it works OK but about 1/2 as fast as my 2.8GHZ P4 XP Pro system with 768MB RAM.
I wish I could afford a Vista capable system but food and rent keep getting in the way.
-
Wow, I had no idea that having an anti-virus and firewall would suck up all a system's resources, very disappointing. I thought programs were supposed to get better, instead it seems like they are all bloated and take up way too much of the system. So what to do, have a slower computer but safer, or a faster computer more at risk. I am using a notebook so adding RAM is different. We have added it before to the desktop, no problem, but don't know anything about adding it to a notebook, and not sure I'd want to try. Do you have to have that done? Will adding RAM fix the problem or is that really not worth the trouble and just find other software to use? I did a lot of checking before I picked Avast and Comodo, I was using AVG and Sygate. AVG also became too bloated and didn't work very well with their last update, and Sygate was abandoned and did not update at all. Thanks for all your help and any more advice!
-
hiyanett, I do suggest you keep only Windows Firewall, just that.
In most laptops you can add RAM, but it's not as cheap as in desktops.
-
Hi all,
Told you we would end up discussing the amount of RAM...
Point I was trying to make with my comment on RAM is that if a computer runs normally (and in my case, yes, no multitasking...) without security apps, there should be no reason why it gets slowed down so much by a firewall or antivirus or suite or whatever, even if that application is my dearest Avast. And that no-one with a 'regular' amount of RAM (64-1024) seems to admit that even Avast became more and more hungry over the years. I am not blaming Avast, and I am not a programmer, I am just a pc user. And one who gets more and more annoyed by the increasing number of (milli)seconds needed before a pc reacts on a mouse click. All due to malware infection risks.
Brgds,
mack
-
The eternal fight security against performance...
-
The eternal fight security against performance...
4 years ago, that was the reason I changed to avast! and kissed Symantec bye-bye ;D
-
The eternal fight security against performance...
4 years ago, that was the reason I changed to avast! and kissed Symantec bye-bye ;D
Only 4 years Bob, I have had avast for almost 5 years now and you were on the forums when I first joined ?
-
The eternal fight security against performance...
4 years ago, that was the reason I changed to avast! and kissed Symantec bye-bye ;D
Only 4 years Bob, I have had avast for almost 5 years now and you were on the forums when I first joined ?
I guess time flies David. Your right, it's almost 5 years according to my join date and I used avast! for quite
a while before ever joining the forum. :)
-
Yes time flies, especially when you are having fun ;D
On the subject of time, it is bedtime, almost 2am here, good night all.
-
4GB of RAM in a 32bit OS is a bit of a waste and overkill to my mind, since the OS can only physically address in the region of 3GB and to that you also have to add any memory on a dedicated graphics card.
In fact it can address 4GB depending of the BIOS and not only 3GB. Mine is handling 4GB.
How can you be so sure, sure Vista SP1 shows you have 4gb of ram but is it actually using that amount ? Don't think so. Open Task Manager and go under performance and check the size under Physical Memory(Total) ... What is the number ?
-
Some might find this interesting as the OS memory max issue isn't as straight forward as it seems.
Here's the full story behind how much RAM a given system can handle.
First, there's hardware. Each system has a fundamental physical limit on the amount of memory it can accommodate. Most PCs and laptops sold today have a 32-bit internal architecture.
That means that the computer can generate distinct, internal memory addresses that start at zero and go up to a binary number (ones and zeros) that's 32 digits long. Mathematically, that's 2 to the 32nd power — or about 4.2 billion memory addresses to play with. This translates to about 4GB.
The 32-bit limit is fundamental and real: a 32-bit PC cannot generate an internal 33-bit address, so once all 4.2 billion addresses are in use, you're done. About 4GB is all you get for RAM in a 32-bit PC, period.
Why "about" 4GB? Why isn't it an exact number? That's because the PC uses its total memory space not just for RAM but also for such housekeeping chores as remembering your hardware and maintaining internal scratchpads and "stacks."
Any memory addresses remaining unused after the housekeeping requirements are met will be available for use as general-purpose memory. This represents the amount of RAM you can actually use.
It's not unusual for a PC to need almost a full gigabyte of addresses for internal use, so putting 4GB of RAM into a standard 32-bit system usually nets around 3.2GB of usable RAM. The rest of the 4GB of RAM is there, but the system has no way of accessing the memory because your PC has run out of internal addresses.
There's a further complication: many current systems — especially laptops — don't even try to allow the absolute theoretical maximum RAM due to such design considerations as cost, heat, power consumption, and size.
<snip>
That's the hardware side of things, but standard 32-bit software also shares the same mathematical ceiling that 32-bit hardware has and is likewise limited to recognizing no more than 4GB of address space.
That's all the RAM that standard 32-bit XP or Vista (or 32-bit Linux or Macs, for that matter) will ever "see" on standard 32-bit hardware. No matter how you slice it, 2 to the 32nd equals 4GB. That's all there is.
Note that some server-oriented 32-bit systems can use "address extensions" to perform a sleight-of-hand that tricks the operating system into thinking it's working within the normal 4GB address space when the system is actually tap-dancing madly behind the scenes to allow access to somewhat more.
Scott Dunn covered some of these techniques in his excellent column in the Dec. 18, 2008, newsletter titled "Access more memory, even on a 32-bit system." But even though the techniques Scott describes let you partially sidestep current memory constraints, they don't change the fundamental 4GB cap for 32-bit architectures.
The real answer for more memory space is to move to 64-bit hardware and software. The mathematical ceiling for 64-bit hardware is an astonishing 16EB (exabytes) of memory space — 16 quintillion bytes. That's a whopping 16 million terabytes, or 16 billion gigabytes. That ought to accommodate your MP3 collection.