Malwarebytes Ram Usage should be less than 100mb!

[biomembrain]

I love Malwarebytes. It is also really nice since it is also compatible in my experience with Cryptocurrencies.

However this is the issue: it takes 367.0mbs to run this program! This is almost 1/2 a gigabyte of ram~!

see attached Task Manager pic

 

I am suggesting that the Malwarebytes team's next priority is to reduce ram usage to less than 100mb. All the Antiviruses like Avast, Norton, Kaspersky never used this much ram for active protection. What is preventing this issue from being solved? How can a computer with only 4gb of ram even operable with Malwarebytes premium.

If you fix this problem, a lot of people, a lot of people would be hugely impressed with you guys. I know this maybe hard since you have so many great protection assets. But take this as the next big challenge for more widespread adoption.

Thank you!

 

Biomembrain

 

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by biomembrain

[David H. Lipman]

Your nomenclature and your perception are incorrect.

It is not;  "367.0mbs",  It is 367MB

Lowercase ( Mb ) is MegaBit and uppercase ( MB )is Mega Byte.  There are 8 bits to 1 byte.

367MB can also be expressed as .367GB which makes that less that 10% of a 32bit max of 4GB ( 2³² - 1 ).  If you take into account 32bit OS overhead and conclude a maximum of 3.5GB that's 10.4% of the memory.

Replying to this thread, I am using Firefox v51+ on Win7/32 and it is presently using ~280MB.

In the graphic you posted Firefox is using 1.6GB.

 

[biomembrain]

1 hour ago, David H. Lipman said:

Your nomenclature and your perception are incorrect.

It is not;  "367.0mbs",  It is 367MB

Lowercase ( Mb ) is MegaBit and uppercase ( MB )is Mega Byte.  There are 8 bits to 1 byte.

367MB can also be expressed as .367GB which makes that less that 10% of a 32bit max of 4GB ( 2³² - 1 ).  If you take into account 32bit OS overhead and conclude a maximum of 3.5GB that's 10.4% of the memory.

Replying to this thread, I am using Firefox v51+ on Win7/32 and it is presently using ~280MB.

In the graphic you posted Firefox is using 1.6GB.

 

Thanks for the information David H. Lipman. However your hostility towards me and the community as a whole is disappointing.  Referencing "Your nomenclature and your perception are incorrect."

I don't care how smart you are. I guess you're not smart with dealing with people. For being so smart, 10.4% of the ram of 3.5GB of the computer is still a lot David! Just let me take 10.4% of your bank account, and see if you're happpppy.

Thank ya.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by biomembrain

[bobd]

I'm having the same problem. Malwarebytes uses 367MB on my system. It is the largest memory usage program  I have. Is there a way of somehow reducing this number?

 

[pfeerick]

I think a lot of that memory goes to the web protection shield... as when I was running MBAMv3 last, I tried turning off the resident web shield, and it dropped from the 350MB+ to approximately 100MB. So if you want to remove the protection.... then yeah, there is a way to reduce it, but unless your computer is running slow, and running out of memory for your programs... then it doesn't matter, and MBAM should have the memory it needs to do it's job. 

Memory reporting on Windows can be a bit confusing at times. If you look the attached screenshot from the Resource Monitor, you'd be forgiven for thinking that I only have 27MB of memory free (since that is what is stated!). However. when you look at the "Available" line it says 7648MB. Huh? How do you get 7648MB into 27MB? Because, if you look at the "Standby" section of the graph, it says there is 7621MB of the memory in standby. That's cached data that isn't actively in use. It's there just in case it is needed, otherwise, it's free "Available" memory. Thankfully the task manager is a bit better behaved. When you look at "Memory" on the "Performance" tab... it says that I currently have 4.3GB of memory in use, and 7.5GB of memory available. It's only further down that it tries to trip you up again by reporting 7.5GB of cached memory

But I digress. As far as memory usage... as long as you have enough available memory that Windows isn't swapping memory out to your hard drive... you have enough free memory! It's there to be used after all!

Edited March 12, 2017 by pfeerick
missing word

[TheThornWithin]

On 3/4/2017 at 9:07 PM, David H. Lipman said:

Your nomenclature and your perception are incorrect.

It is not;  "367.0mbs",  It is 367MB

Lowercase ( Mb ) is MegaBit and uppercase ( MB )is Mega Byte.  There are 8 bits to 1 byte.

367MB can also be expressed as .367GB which makes that less that 10% of a 32bit max of 4GB ( 2³² - 1 ).  If you take into account 32bit OS overhead and conclude a maximum of 3.5GB that's 10.4% of the memory.

Replying to this thread, I am using Firefox v51+ on Win7/32 and it is presently using ~280MB.

In the graphic you posted Firefox is using 1.6GB.

 

 

 

On 3/4/2017 at 10:36 PM, biomembrain said:

Thanks for the information David H. Lipman. However your hostility towards me and the community as a whole is disappointing.  Referencing "Your nomenclature and your perception are incorrect."

I don't care how smart you are. I guess you're not smart with dealing with people. For being so smart, 10.4% of the ram of 3.5GB of the computer is still a lot David! Just let me take 10.4% of your bank account, and see if you're happpppy.

Thank ya.

 

 

Hostility? I didn't detect any "hostility". Maybe you spelled "panties in a bunch" wrong?

[davei1]

biomembrain,

Totally agree with you...They've turned MB into a pig for resources...This is one of the reasons they tell you that your don't need to run

another antivirus/security program...Because theirs is consuming so much in resources...I have my doubts as to whether this new version

of MB will ever run on older systems with less memory effectively...

HOWEVER...I see that you are using Firefox....Beginning with Firefox version 51 they turned on by default  e10s which makes firefox

run twice in memory and consumes more memory...I discovered this when they first turned it on by default and posted in other forums

as it was also interfering with older programs launching correctly from links in Firefox...

I turned mine off as it did nothing but cause problems and it consumes more memory...

To turn off e10s in Firefox to save memory...

Type ( about:config ) in the Firefox search bar...It will give you a warning..Say ok that you want to edit the settings...

This bring you to Firefox's many internal settings that you can't see in the normal settings...

Scroll down to browser.tabs.remote.autostart.2

You will see it says ENABLED....

Doubleclick that entry to DISABLE it...

Exit out of Firefox

Reboot your computer...

Start Firefox...

Now check your taskmanager and you will see firefox now running in only one instance and consuming less memory...

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by davei1

[exile360]

Greetings

I thought I should add some info here to try to clear things up as best I can with regards to our RAM usage and other performance metrics.  First off, Malwarebytes has several modules that protect against various threats and attack vectors (4 currently; 5 if you count self-protection) so that has something to do with it.  Also, we've discovered that keeping as much of our database loaded into memory as possible actually results in better overall system performance, not worse.  The reason for this is simply because many AVs/other anti-malware products, in order to seem like they are using less resources/RAM etc. will actually not load much of their database(s) into memory until a new file is downloaded/executed etc.  This results in often serious lag when attempting to run a new process in memory (even clean processes) as they end up having to scan the item/load those databases anyway.  We avoid eating up so much CPU by keeping our databases in memory so that analysis and detection (if something is a threat) are almost instantaneous.

That said, we definitely believe that there are things we would like to do better, including reducing our memory footprint so that our software runs as fast and as light as possible without interfering with normal use of the PC.  In fact, this is one key area that we have developers focused on right now.  The challenge is to dramatically reduce our RAM usage without sacrificing too much (if any) overall speed/performance of the system and our software.  It's not an easy thing to accomplish, but I do believe that through hard work and smart coding, our developers will be able to come up with a reasonable solution to this.  It should only be a matter of time.

Anyway, I hope this helps.  I realize it doesn't exactly fix the issue of high RAM usage in Malwarebytes (as I type this, MBAMService.exe is consuming approximately 340MB of RAM on my system; though thankfully I've got 24GB, so it isn't impacting the loading of other software or anything).  Also, while I completely understand what you're saying about older/slower systems with less memory installed, any modern system with an adequate amount of RAM wouldn't really benefit in any way if we did reduce our memory footprint, but they could be impacted it we increased our CPU footprint, especially when analyzing new processes being loaded into memory.  As others have stated, the only time RAM usage is a problem is when you actually run out of it and Windows must page processes to disk via the paging file.  Having a certain amount of free RAM really doesn't do anything to improve the performance of a system (the only real exception being technology such as SuperFetch in Windows Vista, which MS actually toned down in a major way in 7+ due to users complaining about it eating up so much RAM, many not realizing that all it was doing was loading up the most recently/commonly used processes/data into memory to improve the load times/performance of said software once the user decides to run them).

[Electro300]

The most problem in here it was MBAM was get out to much quickly.  Result people don't like, because he create a big mistake with others software's , bugs and get pc very slow sometime. I love MBAM but right now, i am little disappointed.

[biomembrain]

4 hours ago, exile360 said:

Greetings

I thought I should add some info here to try to clear things up as best I can with regards to our RAM usage and other performance metrics.  First off, Malwarebytes has several modules that protect against various threats and attack vectors (4 currently; 5 if you count self-protection) so that has something to do with it.  Also, we've discovered that keeping as much of our database loaded into memory as possible actually results in better overall system performance, not worse.  The reason for this is simply because many AVs/other anti-malware products, in order to seem like they are using less resources/RAM etc. will actually not load much of their database(s) into memory until a new file is downloaded/executed etc.  This results in often serious lag when attempting to run a new process in memory (even clean processes) as they end up having to scan the item/load those databases anyway.  We avoid eating up so much CPU by keeping our databases in memory so that analysis and detection (if something is a threat) are almost instantaneous.

That said, we definitely believe that there are things we would like to do better, including reducing our memory footprint so that our software runs as fast and as light as possible without interfering with normal use of the PC.  In fact, this is one key area that we have developers focused on right now.  The challenge is to dramatically reduce our RAM usage without sacrificing too much (if any) overall speed/performance of the system and our software.  It's not an easy thing to accomplish, but I do believe that through hard work and smart coding, our developers will be able to come up with a reasonable solution to this.  It should only be a matter of time.

Anyway, I hope this helps.  I realize it doesn't exactly fix the issue of high RAM usage in Malwarebytes (as I type this, MBAMService.exe is consuming approximately 340MB of RAM on my system; though thankfully I've got 24GB, so it isn't impacting the loading of other software or anything).  Also, while I completely understand what you're saying about older/slower systems with less memory installed, any modern system with an adequate amount of RAM wouldn't really benefit in any way if we did reduce our memory footprint, but they could be impacted it we increased our CPU footprint, especially when analyzing new processes being loaded into memory.  As others have stated, the only time RAM usage is a problem is when you actually run out of it and Windows must page processes to disk via the paging file.  Having a certain amount of free RAM really doesn't do anything to improve the performance of a system (the only real exception being technology such as SuperFetch in Windows Vista, which MS actually toned down in a major way in 7+ due to users complaining about it eating up so much RAM, many not realizing that all it was doing was loading up the most recently/commonly used processes/data into memory to improve the load times/performance of said software once the user decides to run them).

Thank you very much exile360

I understand that you guys recently merged the Ransomware, and Anti-Exploit technologies in one. That is really tremendous of you guys since I know how hard coding is. I want to tell the staff at Malwarebytes including you that: "You're awesome!" 

I really love this community, and it seems that we work great at the collective level. So much so, that we can solve anything like a supercomputer. We have to remember that every one of us is special. We can't and shall not underestimate ourselves. We are capable of so much remarkable things it is unbelievable. I have seen some amazing things from unknown amazing people in my lifetime.

Thank you so much Malwarebytes team! You guys are totally smashing the can, without the pain.

Sebastian (๑•̀ㅂ•́)و✧