Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. There was a lengthy thread on the subject of "High CPU" back in April (http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=124857&page=1). The part of issue was caused by the Website blocking database that cause others like me to have the CPU pegged at 100% for 10-12 minutes was resolved. My CPU still pegs at 100% for 1-2 minutes during databased updates and about 1 minute when the Website Blocking service is activated. During those times, the PC is unusable. Granted, my machine is old, a WinXP, 1800Mhz single core, 1GB ram. But, I can tell you that I don't have any other piece of software on my PC that is as big a CPU hog consuming as much CPU and RAM as Malwarebytes. I just chalk it up to poor programming and development practices. As far as I know the issue was never resolved. You didn't mention your hardware configuration, e.g. CPU, RAM, OS version, etc.
  2. I followed the MBAM Clean removal procedure to remove, then re-installed the application. After the re-install, the start-up time for MBAM.exe seems to have improved, albeit slightly. Rather than a start-up time being 25-30 seconds, it's now closer to 20 seconds. The CPU is still pegged at 100% during the start up of the application. And the behavior is consistent whether I start from the tray icon or start from the Programs menu. It just seems odd that the application would consume 100% of the CPU just to display the application dialog.
  3. Opening the MBAM gui from system tray in Windows XP using "Start Scanner" takes 20 - 30 seconds before the MBAM dialog box is displayed. During this time, the CPU is pegged at 100%. My expectation is that the dialog box would open within ~5 seconds. Why does it take so long to open and why is the CPU at 100% while it is opening? Is this related to the High CPU issue (http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=124857)?
  4. I have scheduled updates to run daily at the same time each day, ~1:00pm. I've noticed that the update doesn't ever run at 1:00pm, but rather seems to run anywhere between 1:10 - 1:15pm. Anyone have an logical explanation for why the updates are not executed at the scheduled time?
  5. With all of the issues around the v2013.04.15.12 database issues, this topic seems to have taken a back seat. This was a pretty hot topic affecting many if not all WinXP users. Was the resolution to this related in anyway to the false positives that occurred the same day? I downloaded and installed v2013.04.17.08 on my WinXP machine today. The time to start IP Protection (Website Blocking) after the database update went from ~10-12 minutes (using v2013.04.15.08) to ~40 seconds (using v2013.04.17.08). Looks like the database update significantly decreased, although did not eliminate, the high CPU time. When I disable and re-enable the IP Protection (Website Blocking), the CPU still shoots instantly to 100% and stays there for ~40 seconds. Don't get me wrong, this is a huge improvement and I'm glad for the change that was made. I'm just of the opinion that no process should consume 100% of the CPU, thus monopolizing the system. When my avast antivirus updates occur, the CPU doesn't go above 60-70%. Is it possible to limit the CPU consumption to ~60-70% so that there is some headroom to operate while the database update occurs? Also, it was indicated in an earlier post the change made was in "significantly reducing the number of IPs in the website blocking database". I didn't notice any perceptible difference in the size of the rules.ref file. Why would that be, isn't this where the definitions are stored?
  6. Can any other WinXP SP3 users that had the 100% CPU for 5 - 20 minutes confirm that the database update resolved the high CPU utilization issue? With all of the posts yesterday with the "false positives" caused by a database update, I'm hesitant to update mine. I'm looking for some confirmation that the database update resolves the issue before I update mine. BTW, does anyone else think it's strange that if the issue was caused by a large number of IP's in the database, that the resolution was to remove them to reduce the size? I guess that makes me question, either 1) there was a bug that caused the database to grow artificially large in size, or 2) the number of IPs in the database size was reduced to resolve the CPU issue, but at a cost of leaving machines unprotected from those IPs that were removed. Can anyone comment on whether the it was it, #1 or #2, or something other? Looking forward to hearing others experience with the latest updates.
  7. There are so many posts on this topic, I don't have time to read through them all. It would be helpful if Customer Support could post a Question and Answer type of sticky post. As a suggestion, it could follow the outline below: - What was the root cause of the false positive issue? - Was the issue caused by the application update or by a definition update, or a combination of both? - What specific versions of application and / or definition caused the problem, eg. v1.7x.xxxx and v2013.04.xx.xx? - Does the issue affect all OS's or just specific OS's, e.g. WinXP, WinXP Pro, Win7 Home, Win7 Pro, Win8 etc.? - Has the issue been completely resolved, or is there just a temporary workaround been been issued? - What specific versions of application and definition resolved the problem, eg. v1.7x.xxxx and v2013.04.xx.xx? - If you did not have one of the application or definitions that caused the false positives, what action should the user take? - Is it recommended to run MBAM Clean and reinstall? There may be others but this should be a good start. This will help clear up confusion and provide some context that is hard to gather unless you have time to read the hundreds of posts on the topic.
  8. Sounds like there is a fix in the works. Will there be any beta testing for users who have posted here to get involved to make sure that the proposed fix actually works?
  9. Add me to the list of affected Windows XP SP3 users with 100% CPU utilization for 10 - 12 minutes after IP Protection starts. I have the Update scheduled to run daily. If you look at the log file, after the database is updated, the main service and the IP Protection are stopped and restarted. The interesting thing to me has been that after I first installed v1.7 the time to start IP Protection was 4-5 minutes. It has steadily grown longer over the past two or three weeks. It's increasing little by little each day and it was up to 12 minutes today. I updated to v1.75 yesterday and there is no difference in the CPU consumption. Same as the other posts here, the machine is completely unusable during the time the CPU is high. After the CPU eventually calms down all is fine, I don't have any utilization issues at all until the next update. I've had a case open with Tech Support since the first week of March on this issue. I noticed it immediately after my initial installation of MBAM. I hope there will be quick resolution.
  10. I recently installed Malwarebytes Pro on my Windows XP Home desktop. I noticed that when performing an update or starting the Website Blocking (IP Protection) causes the CPU to ramp up to 100%. Upon reviewing the protection log files, it looks like it is regularly taking about 4 minutes from the the start of IP Protection until the time IP Protection is loaded. After service is up and running, everything else seems relatively normal. I don't experience any further performance issues. I'm running Avast Free v8. Any help would be much appreciated.
Back to top
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.