Win up-date uses so much Ram my computer becomes un-responsive

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
snip
It takes me to:
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsu...&&thankspage=5

Then your default update source is *Microsoft* Update and the links
in my previous post apply to your computer...

SCRATCH THAT! Your default is *Windows* Update and so whatever your
problem is, it has nothing to do with the very specific behavior I'd
been discussing.

I wonder if there is a related problem.

That is, if OP disables Automatic Updates and manually downloads and
installs updates from the Windows Update website, I wonder how that
would affect his PC's behavior.

I once had a similar issue (on another PC, yes an older one). And it was
Windows Update. And the problem did go away when I disabled Automatic
Updates.

Not the best solution, of course. But I was diligent in keeping that PC
patched!

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
snip
It takes me to:
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsu...&&thankspage=5

Then your default update source is *Microsoft* Update and the links in my
previous post apply to your computer...

SCRATCH THAT! Your default is *Windows* Update and so whatever your
problem is, it has nothing to do with the very specific behavior I'd been
discussing.

Or maybe you did stumble on to something: read my last post.

Cheers,
S

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
snip
It takes me to:
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsu...&&thankspage=5

Then your default update source is *Microsoft* Update and the links in my
previous post apply to your computer...

SCRATCH THAT! Your default is *Windows* Update and so whatever your
problem is, it has nothing to do with the very specific behavior I'd been
discussing.

Or maybe you did stumble on to something: read my last post.

Cheers,
S

I have no idea what your thinking is...

(in all likelihood, I'm showing my ignorance!)

...however; the answers to your query are; approx 170Kb and I don't know
if Resident Shield will pick up the test virus I placed in that dir....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"MowGreen" wrote in message
...
Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when initialized
by Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up.

My solution it to disable Automatic Updates and double-click on my icon
with the command-line :

C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuauclt.exe /detectnow

...about twice a week - which accomplishes exactly the same thing as my
system was doing only at times I choose (i.e when I'm not working on
anything else).

What's wrong with that.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)


P.S. Actually, I haven't disabled Auto Updates at all. What I do in
reality is to bring up a cmd prompt window and use pskill to terminate
the "wuauclt" process manually.

I simply have to do this or nothing else at all is possible on the
PC....


Tim,

Would you answer these questions, please -

1) What is the size of DataStore.ebd, located in
WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore ?

2) Is the installed AV monitoring or scanning the above file ?



MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked

I have no idea what your thinking is...

(in all likelihood, I'm showing my ignorance!)

...however; the answers to your query are; approx 170Kb and I don't know
if Resident Shield will pick up the test virus I placed in that dir....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"MowGreen" wrote in message
...
Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when initialized
by Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up.

My solution it to disable Automatic Updates and double-click on my icon
with the command-line :

C:\WINDOWS\system32\wuauclt.exe /detectnow

...about twice a week - which accomplishes exactly the same thing as my
system was doing only at times I choose (i.e when I'm not working on
anything else).

What's wrong with that.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)


P.S. Actually, I haven't disabled Auto Updates at all. What I do in
reality is to bring up a cmd prompt window and use pskill to terminate
the "wuauclt" process manually.

I simply have to do this or nothing else at all is possible on the
PC....


Tim,

Would you answer these questions, please -

1) What is the size of DataStore.ebd, located in
WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore ?

2) Is the installed AV monitoring or scanning the above file ?



MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked

For god's sake, we're back to the obsequious condescension are we?

The reason I posted the details of my own experiences, was to demonstrate
the reasoning behind the advice I gave to the OP in my previous post to
that one.

If you can't keep up?!.......

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
You are certainly welcome to begin your own, new thread about YOUR
problem and YOUR computer. Thank you.

Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when initialized
by
Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up...

For god's sake, we're back to the obsequious condescension are we?

The reason I posted the details of my own experiences, was to demonstrate
the reasoning behind the advice I gave to the OP in my previous post to
that one.

If you can't keep up?!.......

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
You are certainly welcome to begin your own, new thread about YOUR
problem and YOUR computer. Thank you.

Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when initialized
by
Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up...

MYOB

Tim Meddick wrote:
For god's sake, we're back to the obsequious condescension are we?

The reason I posted the details of my own experiences, was to demonstrate
the reasoning behind the advice I gave to the OP in my previous post to
that one.

If you can't keep up?!.......

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
You are certainly welcome to begin your own, new thread about YOUR
problem and YOUR computer. Thank you.

Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when initialized
by
Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up...

MYOB

Tim Meddick wrote:
For god's sake, we're back to the obsequious condescension are we?

The reason I posted the details of my own experiences, was to demonstrate
the reasoning behind the advice I gave to the OP in my previous post to
that one.

If you can't keep up?!.......

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
You are certainly welcome to begin your own, new thread about YOUR
problem and YOUR computer. Thank you.

Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when initialized
by
Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up...

What happened to your 'Bite Me' retort?
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
MYOB

Tim Meddick wrote:
For god's sake, we're back to the obsequious condescension are we?

The reason I posted the details of my own experiences, was to demonstrate
the reasoning behind the advice I gave to the OP in my previous post to
that one.

If you can't keep up?!.......

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
You are certainly welcome to begin your own, new thread about YOUR
problem and YOUR computer. Thank you.

Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when
initialized
by
Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up...

What happened to your 'Bite Me' retort?
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
MYOB

Tim Meddick wrote:
For god's sake, we're back to the obsequious condescension are we?

The reason I posted the details of my own experiences, was to demonstrate
the reasoning behind the advice I gave to the OP in my previous post to
that one.

If you can't keep up?!.......

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
You are certainly welcome to begin your own, new thread about YOUR
problem and YOUR computer. Thank you.

Tim Meddick wrote:
The problem with my PC is with the image: "wuauclt.exe" when
initialized
by
Automatic Updates. I also have XP running with 512 Mb RAM.

It can hog up to 400 of my 512Mb of memory! Causing my PC to almost
totally freeze up...

Tim Meddick wrote:
I have no idea what your thinking is...

(in all likelihood, I'm showing my ignorance!)

..however; the answers to your query are; approx 170Kb and I don't
know if Resident Shield will pick up the test virus I placed in that
dir....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)


We've been trying to document to MS an issue where XP systems that have
512MB RAM or less become completely bogged down or non-responsive when
opted in to Microsoft Update. Since you stated your system is not opted
in to MU, but updates from Windows Update, I was hoping that, with your
cooperation, we could document that the issue is affecting systems that
are NOT updating from MU.

The size of DataStore.edb on your system shows that you've either
deleted it recently or "reset the updating components", which also
deletes the database file.

The other question I asked involves the monitoring or scanning of the
location of DataStore.edb by the installed AV -
WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore --- this subfolder

There's a known issue when the AV is monitoring or scanning files that
are locked that causes corruption which is described in this KB -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822158

" Note If these files are not excluded, antivirus software may prevent
proper access to these files, and security databases can become
corrupted. Scanning these files can prevent the files from being used or
may prevent a security policy from being applied to the files. These
files should not be scanned because antivirus software may not correctly
treat them as proprietary database files. "

I've found that excluding just DataStore.edb from an AV's scan and *not*
monitoring with a 'RealTime Shield' puts *much* less strain on an XP
system that updates from WU.
Technically speaking, it does lower a system's overall Security but,
I've never seen nor heard of any system becoming compromised by
excluding DataStore.edb from monitoring and scanning.


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked

Tim Meddick wrote:
I have no idea what your thinking is...

(in all likelihood, I'm showing my ignorance!)

..however; the answers to your query are; approx 170Kb and I don't
know if Resident Shield will pick up the test virus I placed in that
dir....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)


We've been trying to document to MS an issue where XP systems that have
512MB RAM or less become completely bogged down or non-responsive when
opted in to Microsoft Update. Since you stated your system is not opted
in to MU, but updates from Windows Update, I was hoping that, with your
cooperation, we could document that the issue is affecting systems that
are NOT updating from MU.

The size of DataStore.edb on your system shows that you've either
deleted it recently or "reset the updating components", which also
deletes the database file.

The other question I asked involves the monitoring or scanning of the
location of DataStore.edb by the installed AV -
WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore --- this subfolder

There's a known issue when the AV is monitoring or scanning files that
are locked that causes corruption which is described in this KB -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822158

" Note If these files are not excluded, antivirus software may prevent
proper access to these files, and security databases can become
corrupted. Scanning these files can prevent the files from being used or
may prevent a security policy from being applied to the files. These
files should not be scanned because antivirus software may not correctly
treat them as proprietary database files. "

I've found that excluding just DataStore.edb from an AV's scan and *not*
monitoring with a 'RealTime Shield' puts *much* less strain on an XP
system that updates from WU.
Technically speaking, it does lower a system's overall Security but,
I've never seen nor heard of any system becoming compromised by
excluding DataStore.edb from monitoring and scanning.


MowGreen
================
*-343-* FDNY
Never Forgotten
================

"Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked

"Spamlet" wrote in message
...

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
Spamlet wrote:
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
Spamlet wrote:
snippage
cf.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...0-63810962cb8c

cf.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...4-2b82806193b6


Thanks for the extra detail Robear.

In my case though it is *Windows* Update that is hogging resources...

Does http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com take you to
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate or
http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate ?

It takes me to:
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsu...&&thankspage=5

Then your default update source is *Microsoft* Update and the links in my
previous post apply to your computer. Yes, the naming conventions are
unfortunate & confusing. As posted in one of the links in my previous
post:


Well I don't know how you could tell, because after going to the site and
paging down to select to remove the MSUpdate software, and restarting,
your link still takes me to:
http://www.update.microsoft.com/wind....aspx?ln=en-us

Though, once there, paging down no longer gets the tick box to remove MSU!

Yes, it sure is confusing!

Anyhow, thanks for your persistence and I look forward to having some ram
for other purposes now!

Cheers,
S


Whether this observation has any significance I don't know, but since
carrying out the above procedure I have not noticed the windows updating
process taking over the svchost process in the way that it did: this has
stayed around 16k, so far (maybe I'm not updating at all...). However, I
have noticed something I had not noticed before in that (running Process
Explorer in the notification area) something called 'Interrupts' now
regularly takes up up to 90% of the processor. What is that all about?

Cheers,
S

"Spamlet" wrote in message
...

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
Spamlet wrote:
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote in message
...
Spamlet wrote:
snippage
cf.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...0-63810962cb8c

cf.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...4-2b82806193b6


Thanks for the extra detail Robear.

In my case though it is *Windows* Update that is hogging resources...

Does http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com take you to
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate or
http://update.microsoft.com/microsoftupdate ?

It takes me to:
http://update.microsoft.com/windowsu...&&thankspage=5

Then your default update source is *Microsoft* Update and the links in my
previous post apply to your computer. Yes, the naming conventions are
unfortunate & confusing. As posted in one of the links in my previous
post:


Well I don't know how you could tell, because after going to the site and
paging down to select to remove the MSUpdate software, and restarting,
your link still takes me to:
http://www.update.microsoft.com/wind....aspx?ln=en-us

Though, once there, paging down no longer gets the tick box to remove MSU!

Yes, it sure is confusing!

Anyhow, thanks for your persistence and I look forward to having some ram
for other purposes now!

Cheers,
S


Whether this observation has any significance I don't know, but since
carrying out the above procedure I have not noticed the windows updating
process taking over the svchost process in the way that it did: this has
stayed around 16k, so far (maybe I'm not updating at all...). However, I
have noticed something I had not noticed before in that (running Process
Explorer in the notification area) something called 'Interrupts' now
regularly takes up up to 90% of the processor. What is that all about?

Cheers,
S