Jump to content

multi-core support?


doctor-z
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello doctor-z

 

I asked a similar question, but in wilders security forum, for some time ago. Here is the link to the thread, hope it will give you the answers you seek. Link : hxxp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=315514&highlight=eset+multi+core+support

 

Have a nice day, regards Janus :-))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello doctor-z

 

I asked a similar question, but in wilders security forum, for some time ago. Here is the link to the thread, hope it will give you the answers you seek. Link : hxxp://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=315514&highlight=eset+multi+core+support

 

Have a nice day, regards Janus :-))

I read it and I think that Marcos is wrong. I am a programmer (a small one) and I now that multi-core support is inside the application you make using SetThreadAffinityMask Windows API to send a thread to a specific core to run (that means we need to make seperate thread for each core). If Marcos is right then how can he explain the fact that cpu usage with my AMD quad-core cpu is always up to 25% and never above? Tested at work and usage is up to 50% with INTEL dual-core cpu. Τhat means NOD uses only one core. (both computers have Win 7 Ultimate edition.)

 

And something else, not relavant enough but it is somehow: WinRAR some days ago with the new (stable) version 5.0 started multi-core support in the decompression algorithm. Before that, only one core was used in decompression. So...... the OS is not responsible for multi-core support.

Edited by doctor-z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It's because you run only one file scan at a time. If you ran 2 scans simultaneously, 2 CPU cores should be utilized, one by each scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because you run only one file scan at a time. If you ran 2 scans simultaneously, 2 CPU cores should be utilized, one by each scan.

It is because I run smart scan or custom scan for a disk drive. I have to wait for hours to complete scanning. In this case, NOD should have multi-core support to reduce the time.

 

In the case you mention, you couldn't do anything else. You were forced to create a new thread to scan the new file because the program cannot wait forever until the current scanning is done.

 

I can't believe that it is September of 2013 and we don't have all the programs supporting multi-core cpus. It is inconceivable.

 As long as someone creates a commercial program, he should offer multi-core support as soon as possible.

Edited by doctor-z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Code emulation is a kind of a task that can only be performed sequentially. It's not that we now have multi-core processors and every single application will benefit from it when performing its tasks. As I wrote, if several scans are run at once (e.g. on mail servers), scanning threads are run by separate cpu cores simultaneously which increases the overall scan performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Code emulation is a kind of a task that can only be performed sequentially. It's not that we now have multi-core processors and every single application will benefit from it when performing its tasks. As I wrote, if several scans are run at once (e.g. on mail servers), scanning threads are run by separate cpu cores simultaneously which increases the overall scan performance.

I am afraid we do not communicate correctly. I have a 4-core cpu in my system at home. When I scan my computer for threats, NOD uses ONLY ONE core. I am wondering…… I have 3 more cores waiting for a job to do….. I paid to buy the program, it is NOT freeware…….. so, as I customer I have demands…… and I would like to see all cores scanning my drives…. not just ONE. It could save my time as I do not have the luxury of waiting… and waiting….. and waiting for hours…. for scanning to end. If the programs are unable to use all of my cores then I do not see the need to buy/have a cpu with more than two cores, one for the OS and one for the running program that needs cpu cycles.

 

I never scan separate files manually. I do a full system scan. In this scan I am referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctor-z

 

LOL

You have demands ?? Ha

Your hilarious. *Munching popcorn*

 

1. Please read up on how smart scan works for ESET , each scan after the fact will be shorter and faster because if a files hash does not change, and you have scanned it before, or if the same md5 has been sent into threatsense, esets scanner, or ekrn will not scan that file on the next go around, it will skip it, thus reducing the time it takes scans to complete.

Some people report scanning 200,000 plus files with eset in less then 2 minutes.

 

As far as your affinity issue concerns, use some logical thinking here if your a programmer, guess what i am also a developer and i would have much to teach you in programming etiquette if your thinking is as i have observed.

 

Marcos states your problem resolution here :

It's because you run only one file scan at a time. If you ran 2 scans simultaneously, 2 CPU cores should be utilized, one by each scan.

 

So Open 1 scan task, and scan 25% of your files. (maybe your windows folder)

Open a second scan task, and scan another 25% (your progam folders)

Open a third using 25% (Users and profiles) and a 4th the remaining 25% ( another drive or remaining files ).

 

The 4 scans would run concurrently and your whole drive would be getting scanned (essentially a full scan), thus each new scan utilizing another core. You would decrease the time you have to wait to finish.

 

If this isnt possible, look into overclocking and change your core frequency to be much higher, thus speeding up your scans.

 

Good day sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Reading several files at once from different physical places on the disk would make hard drive heads move forth and back which would actually slow down the scan speed. You can observe the same when copying files simultaneously within the same disk - it takes longer compared to the scenario when only file is copied at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i dunno about drive heads move forth and back, n such  ... because i have an SSD sitting on a pci-ex lane.

No heads back and forth for me lol.

When several NAND chips operate in parallel inside my card, the throughput does scale yes, but the high latencies can be hidden as long as there are plenty of operations pending and the load is evenly distributed. Not to mention the data striping and interleaving that many ssd's now have built into them. Oh, if its not known, pci-ex also has a striping of data when sending through the links to reduce latency. I may be wrong but i think the 3.0 pcie is 8-16gb/s on the x16.

 

Anyway im rambling, but just mentioning im not affected by the read write head issue.

Did not think of the scanning causing the read heads to swap all over the place, was at the back of mind.

Was more about sticking up for you Marcos :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

You have demands ?? Ha

Your hilarious. *Munching popcorn*

Thanx a lot for your words. They are really helpful. I just wanted to say that NOD can be better than it is. Obviously some people is not sharing the same perceptions with me. I am really-really sorry about my topic. I should write nothing. Please delete my topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL

You have demands ?? Ha

Your hilarious. *Munching popcorn*

Thanx a lot for your words. They are really helpful. I just wanted to say that NOD can be better than it is. Obviously some people is not sharing the same perceptions with me. I am really-really sorry about my topic. I should write nothing. Please delete my topic.

You dont have to apoligize for voicing your opinion sir.

Due to nationality or difference in languages i may have misinterpretted your feelings toward Eset and Marcos,

It almost sounded aggressive.

I would gladly state that our views and opinions on processor affinity and utilizing more cores for apps are one and the same.

It is also my belief that Eset has a strong research team that has already thought of your request, and im confident they have already, come up with pros and cons and the why and why nots.

Marcos makes it sound like they understand and have already made alternative solutions and for good reason.

You are welcome to post anytime, it creates good debate and we all learn from it.

I do feel Eset makes such a good program with no comparison and i wouldnt want to change to another for a processor load scenario.

Edited by Arakasi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...