J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , glee
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
snip
(Can't they be "told" it's a single-core processor they're running
on?) [Avira seems OK here.]
snip

Avira is the only AV that I can get to run on really old XP systems
with 512MB RAM or less and an older processor, without it bogging down
the entire system.

(Good to know - I think - that I'm using a light one.)

How do you mean, "tell" the program it's on a single core?

I was referring to the suggestion someone made that most AV 'wares these
days assume they're on a multicore system, and cause heavy load if run
on a single-core system. I was wondering if they might have a setting to
prevent them trying to multiprocess. (Probably not, as presumably it
should be possible to do it - the detection of whether multicore or not
- automatically, so if they don't, they're not going to bother.)

In Windows, you can use Task Manager and the "Affinity" setting,
to force an executable to stay on a particular core. On a multicore
system, that would effectively reduce the loading on the system.
On a single core system, Affinity is not going to help you as
you only have one core to begin with.

Task Manager also has "priority" settings, and you can experiment
with cranking down the priority setting. If two processes want to
run 100% on the same core, they split 50:50. If you drop the priority
of one process by one notch, then one process might get 75% while
the other gets 25%. So priority doesn't prevent one from running
entirely, it just changes the balance between the two. If you use
too extreme a setting, sometimes a potential side effect is a
deadlock in the system. So don't get carried away.

But an AV program, isn't going to tolerate being manipulated like
that. AV programs are pretty sensitive, and they have to be able
to defend themselves against any potential malware attack. Undoing
Task Manager changes, would be childs play for them. They're
armor plated.

Paul